Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a mismatch in the figures and dates of default shown in the insolvency application and supporting statements was sufficient to reject a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: The application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process had already been admitted on the basis of a financial debt and default. The discrepancy pointed out by the appellant related to the amount outstanding at different points of time and was explained by the respondents as arising from accrual of interest and adjustments made under other recovery proceedings. In proceedings under Section 7, the adjudicating authority is required to satisfy itself that a default has occurred on the basis of the records and evidence produced by the financial creditor. A dispute as to the quantum does not, by itself, negate the existence of a due and payable debt.
Conclusion: The mismatch in figures did not invalidate the order admitting the petition under Section 7, and the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The admission of insolvency proceedings was sustained because the existence of default remained established despite the alleged discrepancy in the claimed amounts.
Ratio Decidendi: For a Section 7 application, the adjudicating authority need only be satisfied that a financial debt is due and default has occurred; a mere mismatch in the claimed figures does not defeat the insolvency proceeding if default is otherwise proved.