NCLT dismisses Canara Bank's Application u/s 95 of IBC on Failure to Prove Claimed Debt of 43 Cr

In a recent case, the Cochin bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed the application filed by Canara Bank under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, on failure to prove the claimed debt of 43 Crore.

A two-member bench of Madhu Sinha, Member (Technical) and Shri. Vinay Goel, Member (Judicial) held that “Despite providing ample opportunity, the petitioner bank has failed to satisfy the bench on the amount mentioned in the demand notice (Rs. 43,68,79,602/-) in all the cases. The computation of the amount claimed in all three demand notices was never explained.”

NCLT Admits Insolvency Plea Over ₹98 Crore Debt Arising from Inter-Corporate Loan Default

The Mumbai Bench of theNational Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted a Section 7 insolvency application filed by DSM Projects Private Limited against A.N. Enterprises Infrastructure Services Private Limited over a default exceeding ₹98 crore.

It was held that the application was complete and within the limitation period, that the default had been clearly established, and that mere invocation of an arbitration clause could not be used as a shield against insolvency proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the ingredients under Section 7 of the IBC had been satisfied. As a result, the CIRP against A.N. Enterprises Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd. stands admitted. A moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC was declared with immediate effect. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chakravarty has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional.

Section 14 of IBC does not bar classification of account of CD during pendency of CIRP: NCLT

A two member bench of Shammi Khan, Member (Judicial) and Sanjeev Sharma, Member (Technical) found that the Financial Creditor is entitled to the relief as sought. The Corporate Debtor's default, acknowledgment of the financial obligations while seeking resolution through the CIRP mechanism under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, justifies the admission of the petition and the initiation of CIRP under the Code.

The Tribunal admitted the application filed under section 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process against (CIRP) the Respondent/Corporate Debtor.

NCLT cannot Suo Moto Restore Name of Struck-Off Company under Companies Act: NCLT

The New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal ( NCLT ) has held that the power of the Tribunal to restore the name of a struck off company under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not a suo motu power.

The Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram, Member Judicial and Shri Atul Chaturvedi, Member Technical observed that a Restoration application filed in Section 397-398 of Companies Act, 1956 cannot be maintained against a Company which has been struck-off by the ROC, since there is no legal existence of such a Company.

The Tribunal held that the Petitioner has failed to present any cogent or satisfactory explanation for the delay in prosecuting the matter. The Petitioners have also displayed continued lack of diligence, having failed to cooperate with the appointed valuer or assist in assessing the financial status of Respondent No. 1, which is now non-operational. Their conduct suggests lack of seriousness, and the restoration appears to be an afterthought.

FD Amounts to Asset of Corporate Debtor: NCLT Allows Custody to RP

The New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) amount to the financial assets of the Corporate Debtor and allowed the custody to the Resolution Professional.

It is the statutory duty of the Resolution Professional, under Section 25(1) read with Section 25(2)(a) and 25(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to preserve, protect, and take custody and control of all assets of the Corporate Debtor. Fixed Deposit Receipts FDRs’ standing in the name of the Corporate Debtor constitute financial assets and form an integral part of the Corporate Debtor’s estate.

In terms of the statutory obligations under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Resolution Professional is required to take custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debtor, including financial assets such as Fixed Deposit Receipts, which form part of the Corporate Debtor’s estate. It is, therefore, within the RP’s lawful authority to approach the concerned bank and request defreezing of such FDRs to ensure they are brought under his control.

Adjudicating Authority’s Role Limited to Section 30(2) Compliance Check after CoC Approval with Required Majority: NCLT

NCLT directs Liquidation u/s 33 of IBC in absence of Resolution Plan even after Extending Time Period

The Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) directed the liquidation under section 33 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 in absence of Resolution Plan even after extending the time period.

The two member bench of Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial) and Siddharth Mishra, Member (Technical) found that the statutory period for the CIRP has been exhausted, and no resolution plan has been received, therefore, applicant after the approval of the COC member prefers to file an application under section 33 (1) (a) as decided by the CoC, l seeking an order requiring the Corporate Debtor to be liquidated.

The tribunal ordered the liquidation of Shomuk Consultancy Services Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor and Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta is appointed as Liquidator.

NCLT directs Liquidation of JM Feed Pvt Ltd on satisfying conditions u/s 33 of IBC, Appoints Liquidator

In a recent ruling, the Chandigarh bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in view of the satisfaction of the conditions provided under section 33 of the Code, the Corporate Debtor, i.e., JM Feed Mills Private Limited, is directed to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). The bench appointed Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta as a liquidator of the corporate debtor i.e. JM Feed Mills Private Limited.

A two member bench of Khetrabasi Biswal, Member (Judicial) and Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, Member (Technical) appointed Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta as a liquidator of the corporate debtor i.e. JM Feed Mills Private Limited. The liquidator so appointed shall complete the liquidation process as per the provisions of the Code read with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.

In view of the satisfaction of the conditions provided under section 33 of the Code, the Corporate Debtor, i.e., JM Feed Mills Private Limited, is directed to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter III of the Code. The present Resolution Professional is directed to hand over the relevant documents and control of the Corporate Debtor to the newly appointed liquidator namely, forthwith.

Provisions of moratorium Not applicable to transactions which might be notified by Central Government: NCLT admits Insolvency Application

In a recent case, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi Bench has held that provisions of moratorium is not applicable to transactions which might be notified by Central Government and admitted the Insolvency application in establishment of default debt.

The Company Application filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”) by M/s Authum Investment & Infrastructure Limited seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against M/s Mohanbir Hi-Tech Build Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”).

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, and in terms of Section 7(5) (a) of the Code, the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma, Anu Jagmohan Singh,Member (Technical) admitted the petition for initiating CIRP against M/s Mohanbir Hi-Tech Build Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor and CIRP of M/s Mohanbir Hi-Tech Build Private Limited is initiated.

The applicant Financial Creditor shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs (Two Lakh Rupees) with the Interim Resolution Professional namely NPV Insolvency Professionals Private Limited to meet out the expenses to perform the initial functions assigned to him in accordance with Regulation 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016.

Electricity Connection cannot be Refused only on account of Past Dues: NCLT

The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that government authority cannot refuse the electricity connection only on account of past dues for which claims have been submitted to liquidator and have been admitted by the Liquidator and are to be dealt with in accordance with Section 53 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code(IBC), 2016.

The two member bench of Ms. Lakshmi Gurung (Judicial Member) and Shri Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer (Technical Member) observed that once the Authority files its claim with the liquidator, the said claim has to be settled in accordance with the waterfall mechanism provided under Section 53 of the Code and the dues of the statutory authority are covered under 53(1)(e) of the Code. Therefore, the Government Authority cannot refuse to grant electricity connection only on account of past dues for which claims have been submitted to liquidator and have been admitted by the Liquidator and are to be dealt with in accordance with Section 53 of the Code.

In the light of the clear law laid down by the Supreme Court, the claims of R-1 shall stand settled on distribution of liquidation estate by the liquidator, in accordance with the ‘waterfall mechanism’ provided under section 53 of the Code. Upon receipt of payment from liquidator as per Section 53 of the Code, the admitted claims of R-1 for Rs.99,49,857/- shall stand settled.

IBC Proceedings are Not meant for recovery of money with respect to Solvent companies: NCLT

In a recent case, the New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT) has held that Insolvency Bankruptcy Code Proceedings are not to recover applicants dues. Dismissed application, as the applicant approached for recovery rather than facilitating the resolution of the Corporate Debtor, who is solvent and operational.

A two member bench of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) held that the Respondent Company is a solvent company who had a long-standing business relationship with the Applicant. There has been no prior record of financial delinquency or breach of contractual obligations by the Respondent vis-à-vis the Applicant. It is because of the fire incident which caused a great loss to the company, the Respondent could not repay the amount due to the Applicant.

NCLT Admits IBC Plea against Palchan Bhang Power for Default in Repaying ₹5.7 Cr over 10-Year Interest-Free Period

Ashirwad Agarwal VS Palchan Bhang Power Private Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (NCLT) 150

The Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal recently admitted a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against Palchan Bhang Power Private Limited (PBPPL), initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

the NCLT admitted the petition and declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, appointing Vigyan Prakash Arora as the Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the corporate insolvency resolution process and management of PBPPL. The Tribunal directed the commencement of the CIRP, while creditors were directed to submit their claims to the IRP for verification and collation in the resolution process.

Financial assistance given by Adhunik Corporation ltd can be treated as Financial Debt citing Element of Commercial Effect of Borrowing: NCLT

The Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that financial assistance given by Adhunik Corporation Ltd can be treated as financial debt, citing the element of Commercial Effect of borrowing.

The two member bench of Bidisha Banerjee , Member (Judicial) and Siddharth Mishra, Member (Technical) allowed the application bearing Company Petition (IB) No. 323/KB/2021 filed under Section 7 of the I&B Code, and accordingly, we order the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIR Process) in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

Further held that there shall be a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The moratorium shall have effect from the date of the Order till the completion of the CIRP or until this Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the IBC or passes an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under section 33 of the IBC.

Vague Allegations of Defective Goods Not a Pre-Existing Dispute: NCLT Accepts Insolvency Petition and CIRP Initiated

The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted a Section 9 application after finding that vague allegations of defective goods did not amount to a pre-existing dispute and the operational debt was clearly established above the statutory threshold.

The two-member bench comprising Nilesh Sharma (Judicial Member) and Sameer Kakar (Technical Member) observed that no material evidence was produced by the corporate debtor to show that disputes on quality were raised before the demand notice. The tribunal explained that the defence raised was an afterthought and amounted to a moonshine dispute.

Based on these findings, the tribunal admitted the petition and ordered the initiation of CIRP against Pushpak Auxichem Private Limited. It declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code and appointed Mr. Sabbani Maruthi as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Documentary Evidence like Court of Board Nominees Order, Bank statements Other than IU Records Sufficient to Establish Default Date: NCLT

The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) clarified that the date of default can be established by placing reliance on documentary evidence other than a record of default with an Information Utility (IU).

The two-member bench comprising Shri Pradeep R. Sethi (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member) observed that the decrees passed in favour of the financial creditor constituted a fresh cause of action. The tribunal accepted the applicant’s arguments and the documentary evidence.

It declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code and appointed Mr. Dhaval C. Khamar as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 to cover initial CIRP costs. The Registry was directed to send the order to the financial creditor, IRP, the Registrar of Companies, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India for compliance.

NCLT Allows claim of Reliance Capital Ltd against Win and Trendz Exim Private Limited, orders Liquidation and Appoints Liquidator

The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allowed the claim of Reliance Capital Ltd, against Win and Trendz Exim Private Limited, the corporate debtor's liquidation with the provision of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC), 2016 and appointed the liquidator.

In view of the same, Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Member (Judicial) and Charanjeet Singh Gulati, Member (Technical) appointed an Insolvency Professional from the IBBI Panel Mr. Anil Seetaram Vaidya to act as the Liquidator in terms of section 34 of the Code.The Corporate Debtor is directed to be liquidated in accordance with the provisions of the IBC and applicable regulations.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

No Power vested to adjudicate disputes w.r.t Copyright Violations of ‘Kaithi’ Movie or Contract Termination: NCLT rejects Application by Dream Warrior Pictures

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench has held that it is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate matters related to copyright violations related to ‘Kaithi’ movie and contract termination and rejected application preferred by Dream Warrior Pictures.

The bench of Shri Sameer Kakar (Member Technical) and Shri Nilesh Sharma ( Member Judicial ) observed that Adjudicating Authority is not a competent forum to decide an issue raised under the present application by the parties qua their mutual rights as to the copyright violation or effect of termination. It is open to the parties to raise these issues by invoking other legal remedies available under the law.

The tribunal held that the Applicant has failed to establish a debt and default on the part of the CD in the payment of an undisputed operational debt to the Applicant, exceeding Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Rupees), being the threshold monetary limit under Section 4 of the Code, prevailing on the date of filing of the present Application. Thus, this Application under Section 9 of the Code preferred by the Applicant is found to be not maintainable.

Relief for UBI: NCLT Declares Former DHFL Chairman Bankrupt Over Rs. 4,546 Crore DHFL Debt

The Mumbai bench of National Company Law Tribunal, declared the personal guarantor, the former chairman of the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) bankrupt over dues of ₹4,545,96,56,973.57 related to the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) facility agreements, providing relief to Union Bank of India (UBI).

The two member bench comprising Lakshmi Gurung (Judicial Member) and Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer (Technical Member) admitted the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 123 of the Code to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against the Personal Guarantor. The total debt owed by the Personal Guarantor to the Petitioner as of 28.03.2025, after adjusting amounts recovered from the Corporate Debtor, was Rs. 4,545,96,56,973.57.

NCLT Allows Liquidation of Phalcom Infra Solutions Pvt Ltd

In a recent case, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allowed the liquidation of Phalcom Infra Solutions Pvt Ltd. The Applicant has also procured the written consent of the proposed Liquidator, which was received on 14th July, 2025.

A two member bench Prabhat Kumar and Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey viewed that the SCC has passed the resolution by requisite majority for appointment of Manish Dawda, Insolvency Professional, having AFA Certificate as the Liquidator in the matter of Liquidation Process of the Phalcomm Infra Solutions Private Limited, Corporate Debtor.

The outgoing Liquidator shall hand over the control and custody of information/documents/assets of the Corporate Debtor to the newly appointed Liquidator, and upon such handover, he shall stand discharged from his duties as liquidator.

Corporate Applicant’s Own Petition under IBC S. 10 Admitted: NCLT Initiates CIRP on Finding Default Due and Payable Beyond IBC Section 4(1) Threshold

In a recent case, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate applicant on finding a default due payable.

After hearing the submissions and upon perusing the supporting documents annexed with the Petition, a two member bench of Prabhat Kumar, Member (Technical) and Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Member (Judicial) viewed that the application made by the Corporate Applicant is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the Corporate Applicant is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is in excess of the minimum amount stipulated under section 4(1) of the IBC, at the relevant time.

Corporate Debtor Defaults in Repayment of Financial Debt over Minimum Threshold of Rs. 1 crore u/s 4 of IBC: NCLT admits CIRP Petition

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench admitted the petition for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) on finding that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in repayment of financial debt over minimum threshold of Rs. 1 crore under section 4 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC).

The two member bench of Sameer Kakar , Member (Technical) and Nilesh Sharma , Member (Judicial) viewed that the execution and invocation of the six corporate guarantees, which are referred to in the table hereinabove, are not in dispute. Further, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor has not produced any evidence to show that the guarantees were discharged or that the debt was paid in full. Thus, the existence of debt and default stand proven on record.

The Tribunal held that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in repayment of financial debt to the Applicant and such default is well over the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 crore, as prescribed under section 4 of the Code. We are also satisfied that the application filed under section 7 of the Code is complete and there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution professional.

NCLT admits CIRP Application of Canara Bank Citing Default payment of a debt amount beyond Rs, 1 Crore

The National Company Law Tribunal ( NCLT) Cuttack Bench admitted the application filed by Canara Bank citing the default payment of a debt amount beyond Rs, 1 Crore as evident from the Form-C and Form-D of the NeSL certificate, from the loan account statement of the respondent maintained by the Financial Creditor and from the acknowledgement of debt instrument executed by the respondent.

A two member bench of Deep Chandra Joshi, Member (Judicial) and Banwari Lal Meena, Member (Technical) allowed the application filed under Section 7 of the Code read with Rule 4(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating CIRP of S.S. Aluminium Private Limited, Corporate Debtor.

NCLT Admits Application of IDBI Bank u/s 7 of IBC as Corporate Debtor Acknowlegdes OTS on Due Debt within period of limitation

In a recent case, the Cuttack bench of the National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT) admitted the application of IDBI Bank filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016 (IBC) as the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the one-time Settlement (OTS) on due debt within period of limitation.

The two members bench of Deep Chandra Joshi (Member Judicial) and Banwari Lal Meena (Member Technical) viewed that as the default has occurred on 31.03.2021 and the subsequent acknowledgement made by the Corporate Debtor through OTS extends the limitation period. It is seen that the Applicant had filed this application on 07.03.2024 which is well within the period of limitation. Hence, the period of limitation stands satisfied.

NCLT allows Exclusion of Time spent by Liquidator in complying with Judicial Orders and Directions of Stake Holders

The Kolkata Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT )has permitted exclusion of time spent by liquidators in complying with judicial orders and directions of the stakeholder body. The tribunal held that the period from 01.05.2025 to 30.06.2025 stands justified for exclusion and is excluded from the Liquidation period.

The bench comprising Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Member-Judicial) and Siddharth Mishra (Member-Technical) viewed that applying the combined scheme of Regulation 47 (model timeline, directory in nature) and Regulation 33 read with Schedule I (strict auction cycles but subject to SCC advice and Tribunal’s leave).

The tribunal held that the period from 01.05.2025 to 30.06.2025 stands justified for exclusion and is excluded from the Liquidation period.

Equity Investment Made through Commercial MoU does not Convert Underlying Claim into Operational Debt: NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal( NCLT), Hyderabad Bench has held that an equity investment made through Commercial memorandum of understanding (MoU) doesn't convert the underlying claim into operational debt. An equity investment, does not relate to the provision of goods or services, and hence does not fall within the meaning of “operational debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The tribunal comprising Mr. Rajee Bhardwaj (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Sanjay Puri (Member-Technical) viewed that the existence of a mere investment or commercial arrangement, without such disbursement, does not satisfy the statutory test. It was found that the transaction clearly falls outside the ambit of Section 5(21). The present transaction, being an equity investment, does not relate to the provision of goods or services, and hence does not fall within the meaning of “operational debt” under the Code.

Application under section 7(5) of IBC cannot be Rejected due to non furnishing of NeSL when existence of debt and default by CD is established: NCLT

In a recent case, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT) has held that application under section 7(5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016 (‘the Code’) cannot be Rejected due to non furnishing of NeSL when existence of debt and default by Corporate Debtor is established.

The Applicant/Financial Creditor has not only established the existence of financial debt but also satisfactorily proved that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in repayment of the financial debt and such default well exceeds the minimum threshold of rupees one crore prescribed under section 4 of the Code for initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.

The bench admitted Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7(5)(a) of the Code against the Corporate Debtor, namely, Quanteco World Limited.

Adjudicating Authority Bound to Initiate CIRP if Application u/s.10 is Complete and There is No Ineligibility u/s.11: NCLT

A Division Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal at Chennai held that when an application under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is deemed complete and the corporate applicant does not stand disqualified by any of caveats of Section 11, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to admit the petition and initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The Bench of Sanjiv Jain, Member (Judicial) and Venkataraman Subramaniam, Member (Technical) examined the provisions of section 10 of the IBC. The Tribunal further referenced the decision of the NCLAT, New Delhi in M/s. Unigreen Global Private Limited vs. Punjab National Bank and others (2017) and Go Airlines(India) Limited(2024 TAXSCAN (NCLT) 141) to hold that when an application under Section 10 is complete and no ineligibility under Section 11 exists, the adjudicating authority is bound to admit the company petition.

Accordingly, the Tribunal admitted the petition, initiated CIRP and appointed Rongali Sridevi as the Interim Resolution Professional with requisite directions, including directions to seek police assistance to retrieve relevant information if the corporate debtor was non-cooperative.

Petition u/s 7 of IBC is not barred by Institution of Criminal Proceedings against Officials of Financial Creditor: NCLT allows Application of Canara Bank

In a recent case, while admitting the application filed by Canara Bank, the Cuttack bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that institution of criminal proceedings against the concerned official of the Financial Creditor cannot be a ground to reject the application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, unlike in a Section 9 application, a pre-existing dispute cannot be a bar for admission of an application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016.

The bench of Deep Chourasia (Judicial Member) and Babulal Meena (Technical Member) observed that the FIR was registered by the respondent against the concerned official of the Financial Creditor cannot be a ground to reject the application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, unlike in a Section 9 application, a pre-existing dispute cannot be a bar for admission of an application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016.

It is conclusively established that the Respondent has in fact defaulted in payment of a debt amount i.e. beyond Rs, 1 Crore as evident from the Form-C and Form-D of the NeSL certificate, from the loan account statement of the respondent maintained by the Financial Creditor and from the acknowledgement of debt instrument executed by the respondent dated 13.07.2021 and the present application has been filed within the period of limitation as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

NCLT Admits Rs 2,888 Cr Insolvency Petition by Canara Bank Against Gupta Power Infrastructure, Appoints IRP

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata bench admitted Rs 2,888 Cr Insolvency petition by Canara Bank against Gupta Power Infrastructure, holding that when a financial creditor consortium establishes a valid default exceeding the threshold limit under Section 4 of the IBC, supported by proper authorization and undisputed evidence of debt, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to admit the Section 7 petition and initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The Tribunal held that the Power of Attorney constituted valid authorization under IBC, the debt far exceeded the ₹1 crore threshold, and defaults occurred outside the Section 10A exclusion period. It emphasized that the existence of "financial debt" (disbursal against time value of money) and "default" were conclusively established through documentary evidence, making the debt "due and payable" despite the debtor's disputes.

The NCLT Bench of Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member) and Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) examined the plan in light of the statutory framework and observed that the plan value of ₹3.4 crore exceeded the actual liquidation value of ₹3.24 crore.

The proposed resolution plan also provided for payment of ₹25 lakh towards CIRP costs and ₹2.3 crore to the secured financial creditor within 60 days, with an ‘Implementation and Monitoring Committee’ in place to oversee the execution.

Accordingly, the NCLT approved the resolution plan while directing the applicant to duly comply with the stipulated timelines and implementation under statutory supervision, while ending the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC.