National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Against CIRP Initiation Due to Lack of Merit. The court found that Respondent No.1 was not an NBFC at the time of CIRP initiation, thus the initiation was not fraudulent under Section 7 of the IBC.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by B & G Power Ltd against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which had accepted an insolvency petition against Mona Portfolio Ltd. The appellant argued that the respondent misled the NCLT by claiming it was not a non-banking financial company (NBFC), thereby initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) fraudulently. The appellant asserted that Respondent No.1 was a financial institution registered with the Reserve Bank of India and thus excluded from the definition of a corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The NCLT dismissed the appellant's application, stating that the appellant lacked locus standi as it was not a party in the CIRP process. The court noted that Respondent No.1 had previously admitted its status as an NBFC in a separate proceeding. During the hearing, it was revealed that Respondent No.1's registration as an NBFC had been cancelled in 2019, which was crucial to the court's decision. The court concluded that the appellant's grievance was not against the initiation of CIRP but rather against the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 against the appellant. The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit, and the court found no reason to interfere with the NCLT's order.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Fraudulent Initiation - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 - The appellant contended that the initiation of CIRP against Respondent No.1 was fraudulent as it was a registered NBFC, thus not maintainable under Section 7. The court held that Respondent No.1 was not an NBFC at the time of CIRP initiation, and therefore, the initiation was not fraudulent (Paras 9-11).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Respondent No.1 was fraudulent due to its status as a non-banking financial company.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit. The court found that Respondent No.1 was not an NBFC at the time of CIRP initiation, and thus the initiation was not fraudulent.

Law Points

  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • fraudulent initiation
  • non-banking financial company
  • jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority
  • Section 7 of IBC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 221

COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(INS) NO.562/2026

2026-09-24

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Mr. Barun Mitra, Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra

Mr. Raghav Kakkar, Mr. Joel, Ms. Honey Satpal, Mr. Akash Agarwalla, Mr. Aman, Ms. Tanya Gupta, Mr. Ujjval Gupta

B & G Power Ltd

Mona Portfolio Ltd

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Remedy Sought

B & G Power Ltd sought to challenge the initiation of CIRP against Mona Portfolio Ltd.

Filing Reason

The appellant claimed that the CIRP was initiated fraudulently as Respondent No.1 was an NBFC.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT had accepted the insolvency petition and initiated CIRP against Respondent No.1.

Issues

Whether the initiation of CIRP against Respondent No.1 was fraudulent due to its status as an NBFC. Whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge the CIRP initiation.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that Respondent No.1 misled the NCLT regarding its status as an NBFC. The respondents contended that the appellant lacked locus standi as it was not a party in the CIRP process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the status of Respondent No.1 as an NBFC was not applicable at the time of CIRP initiation, and the appellant's claims of fraudulent initiation were unfounded.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Respondent No.1 was never a NBFC on the date of initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of IBC.

Procedural History

The appeal arose from an order dated 20th January, 2026, passed in IA No.144/ND/2025 in CP(IB)/585/2024 by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7, Section 65
  • Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934: Section 45-IA
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Copyright Infringement Prosecution — Registration of Copyright Not Mandatory for Criminal Action Under Copyright Act, 1957. Court holds that prior registration under Section 44 is not a prerequisite for ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Caste Certificate Invalidity. The Court ruled that the respondent was not entitled to protection of service based on an invalidated caste certificate.