Abhinav Bhatnagar Vs Bank of Baroda And Ors (NCLAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Since there was outstanding debt qua the Financial Creditor and that there was continuing default and further, the Corporate Debtor had failed to show that the debt liability was liquidated, therefore, the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the Corporate Debtor into the rigours of CIRP was justified.
Held: Adjudicating Authority has admitted Section 7 of IBC filed by the Financial Creditor-Bank of Baroda bringing both the Corporate Debtors into the fold of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP” in short). Respondent No.1-Financial Creditor had sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs 4.97 Cr. on 29.09.2015 (further modified on 04.01.2016) to the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor failed to maintain financial discipline following which the account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA which was also reflected in Part-IV of the Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor. The total dues claimed by the Financial Creditor in Part-IV was Rs 9.57 Cr. consisting of Rs 4.97 Cr. as principal amount and Rs 4.51 Cr. as interest. Satisfied with the evidence of debt and default, the Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order dated 24.03.2025 admitted the Corporate Debtor into CIRP. The grounds on which the impugned order had been assailed were the same grounds on which the impugned order in Company Appeal No. 615 of 2025 had been challenged. These grounds were that there was no default preceding the date of default of 31.03.2017 as claimed in Part-IV; that the Section 7 petition was time-barred and that IA No. 99 of 2025 seeking remedial action for having been denied the right to hear had been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. On the issue of debt and default, Financial Creditor had placed on record Statement of Account alongwith certificate as per provisions of Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 as well as balance sheet from FY 2015-16 to 2021-22 as evidence of debt and default. Like in Company Appeal No.615 of 2025, in the present Appeal too, the Corporate Debtor had failed to show that the debt liability was liquidated. The Adjudicating Authority after considering the material on record had therefore rightly concluded that there was outstanding debt qua the Financial Creditor and that there was continuing default. In the present Appeal too as in Company Appeal No. 615 of 2025, the Financial Creditor had relied on the balance sheets for the purpose of acknowledgment of debt liability for the purpose of limitation. It was noticed that Adjudicating Authority had noted that the balance sheets in the present case also extended the period of limitation. Like in the case of IA No. 98 of 2025 which had been rejected in Company Appeal No. 615 of 2025, the same grounds for rejection holds good in Company Appeal No. 616 of 2025 also. Therefore, the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the Corporate Debtor into the rigours of CIRP was justified.
