National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Sets Aside Admission of CIRP Due to Insufficient Debt. The court found that the debt was below the threshold required for initiating insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by a member of the suspended board of directors of Raja Udyog Private Limited against an order dated 20th July 2026 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata, which admitted an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The respondents, financial creditors, had claimed that the corporate debtor required immediate financial assistance during the Covid-19 pandemic and had defaulted on payments after initially servicing the debt until April 2022. The corporate debtor had borrowed Rs. 3,18,88,305.66, but by the time of the impugned order, it had repaid Rs. 2,25,00,000, leaving only Rs. 93,88,310 due, which was below the threshold of Rs. 1 crore. The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority acted hastily without allowing adequate time for settlement, which was in progress. The respondents admitted to receiving the settlement amount before the impugned judgment, and the court found that the debt was below the threshold at the time of the order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with the CIRP costs to be borne by the appellant.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Admission of Application - Threshold Debt Requirement - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 - The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application despite the corporate debtor having paid a substantial amount, leaving only a sum below the threshold. Held that the impugned order was not sustainable as the debt was below the required threshold at the time of the order (Paras 18-19).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the admission of the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was justified given the payments made by the corporate debtor.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was set aside. The CIRP costs were to be paid by the appellant.

Law Points

  • Insolvency proceedings
  • Corporate Debtor
  • Financial creditors
  • Settlement
  • Admission of application
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 20

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1332 of 2026

2026-08-25

Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Patita Paban Bishwal, Ms. Tanvi Luhariwala, Ms. Swastika Roy, Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Awasthi, Mr. Abhijeet Jain

Loknath Prasad Gupta

Dinesh Chand & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the admission of an application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to set aside the order admitting the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Filing Reason

The corporate debtor defaulted on payments to financial creditors.

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application based on the existence of debt and default.

Issues

Whether the debt was above the threshold for initiating CIRP Whether the Adjudicating Authority acted hastily in admitting the application

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the debt was below the threshold and that the Adjudicating Authority should have allowed time for settlement. The respondents admitted to receiving payments and confirmed that the debt was satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the admission of the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not justified as the debt was below the threshold at the time of the order.

Judgment Excerpts

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 20th July 2026. The impugned order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority is set aside.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal admitting an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal was presented on 28th July 2026, and a joint affidavit regarding settlement was filed on 31st July 2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appeal Against Bar Council's Dismissal of Complaint — Emphasizes Timely Disciplinary Proceedings.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Additional FSI Approval as Abuse of Process. Court finds lack of bonafides and imposes costs of Rs. 5,00,000 for misuse of public interest litigation jurisdiction.