Capital Trade Links Limited Vs Vitasta Software India Private Limited (NCLT Delhi)
Conclusion: Financial Creditor had successfully established the existence of a financial debt and the occurrence of default well above the statutory threshold prescribed under Section 4(1) of the IBC. Despite being granted repeated opportunities, Corporate Debtor had failed to rebut the documentary evidence produced by Financial Creditor. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Section 7(5) of the IBC, the present petition deserved to be admitted, and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was hereby initiated against the Corporate Debtor in accordance with law.
Held: Financial Creditor was a registered NBFC, filed a petition under Section 7 of the IBC seeking initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor M/s Vitasta Software India Pvt. Ltd., incorporated on 27.04.2024. The Corporate Debtor availed a short-term business loan facility of ₹13.50 crore pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated 28.06.2024, disbursed in multiple tranches for three months, carrying interest @1.5% per month. The Corporate Debtor defaulted on 01.10.2024 and again on 15.02.2025. Out of the said amount, a repayment of ₹2.65 crore was made. Despite repeated reminders, notice and legal demand, the outstanding dues remained unpaid. Notices issued by the Tribunal remained unresponded, and the Corporate Debtor failed to file written submissions despite opportunities granted. Financial creditor contended that there was a default financial debt of ₹13.50 crore exists, supported by documentary proof including bank statements, ledger entries, emails, legal notice, and Form-C submission to NeSL. CIRP was maintainable as the admitted debt far exceeds the threshold under Section 4 of IBC. It was held that the existence of financial debt and default stood clearly established from bank records, ledger entries, legal notice and IU record. Discrepancy regarding the quantum of debt was immaterial for admission of a Section 7 petition so long as debt exceeds the statutory threshold, as held in Suzlon Synthetics Ltd. v. SASF (2022 ibclaw.in 904 NCLAT) and the Supreme Court rulings in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407 and ARCIL v. Tulip Star Hotels (2022) 5 SCR 1112. In the absence of any rebuttal or contest by the Corporate Debtor, the petition was liable to be admitted.
