Debt and default prevail over procedural objections in insolvency admission, including authorisation, stamping, bank records, and foreign-law clauses.

Once debt and default were established, procedural objections could not defeat admission under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal upheld authorisation through a valid power of attorney, held that an appeal from dismissal of a winding-up petition and reference on parallel proceedings did not create a subsisting bar, and found RBI stressed-asset directives and Joint Lenders Forum proceedings non-blocking. It also rejected objections on alleged stamp duty defects and bank statement admissibility, and held that foreign-law ECB documentation did not oust Indian insolvency jurisdiction. Both insolvency petitions were admitted, with moratorium and appointment of an interim resolution professional.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the power of attorney authorising the petition signatory was defective; (ii) whether pendency of an appeal against dismissal of a winding-up petition, or reference on the issue of parallel insolvency and winding-up proceedings, barred admission of the insolvency petitions; (iii) whether Reserve Bank of India directives concerning stressed assets and Joint Lenders Forum proceedings affected maintainability under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (iv) whether inadequacy of stamp duty in the facility agreements defeated the petitions; (v) whether the statements of account were inadmissible for want of compliance with the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891; and (vi) whether the ECB facilities governed by foreign law ousted the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the power of attorney authorising the petition signatory was defective.

Analysis: The authorisation documents showed that the bank had, through its seal and duly empowered officers, conferred sweeping authority to initiate and conduct litigation, including insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings. The objection that a fresh board resolution or a post-Code authorisation was necessary was rejected. The Tribunal treated the expression 'authorised person' in the prescribed form as wide enough to include a holder of a valid power of attorney, particularly where the underlying document expressly authorised insolvency action and there was no dispute from the bank's own management about the authority.

Conclusion: The power of attorney was held valid and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether pendency of an appeal against dismissal of a winding-up petition, or reference on the issue of parallel insolvency and winding-up proceedings, barred admission of the insolvency petitions.

Analysis: The dismissal of the winding-up petition meant that no winding-up proceeding was pending before the High Court. Mere pendency of an appeal against that dismissal did not amount to a subsisting winding-up petition. The Tribunal held that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, but that principle did not convert an appeal into a pending winding-up proceeding so as to bar a Section 7 petition. The reference on parallel proceedings was also held inapplicable because the factual predicate of a pending winding-up petition was absent.

Conclusion: The pendency of the appeal and the reference did not bar admission of the petitions.

Issue (iii): Whether Reserve Bank of India directives concerning stressed assets and Joint Lenders Forum proceedings affected maintainability under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the circulars and advisory mechanisms of the Reserve Bank of India were recommendatory or administrative in character and could not curtail statutory remedies available under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Likewise, the existence of Joint Lenders Forum proceedings did not prevent a financial creditor from invoking the Code where debt and default were otherwise established. The overriding effect of the Code prevailed to the extent of any inconsistency.

Conclusion: The Reserve Bank of India directives and Joint Lenders Forum proceedings had no adverse bearing on maintainability.

Issue (iv): Whether inadequacy of stamp duty in the facility agreements defeated the petitions.

Analysis: The objection was found to be vague and unsupported by particulars of the alleged deficit. The Tribunal noted that the agreements had already been acted upon and that the petition was not based solely on those agreements, but on a broader documentary record establishing debt and default. A stamping objection, on the facts, was held insufficient to defeat admission of the insolvency applications.

Conclusion: The stamping objection was rejected.

Issue (v): Whether the statements of account were inadmissible for want of compliance with the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the copies of account statements fell within the concept of bankers' books and that the form required copies of entries from bankers' books, not necessarily a separately certified copy in the manner contended by the corporate debtor. The subsequent filing of supporting statements was also not treated as fatal. Since the corporate debtor did not dispute the existence of debt and default, the statements were accepted as part of the material establishing the claim.

Conclusion: The objection based on the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 was rejected.

Issue (vi): Whether the ECB facilities governed by foreign law ousted the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the fact that the external commercial borrowing documentation referred to foreign law did not prevent insolvency proceedings in India against a corporate debtor located in India. The decisive factors were the existence of debt, default, and the debtor's amenability to the Code. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the creditor had to proceed only before an English forum.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found that debt and default stood established, all procedural objections failed, and both petitions were admitted with moratorium and appointment of an interim resolution professional.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, once debt and default are established, procedural objections such as challenge to authorisation, stamp duty, ancillary bank documentation, RBI circulars, or parallel commercial arrangements cannot defeat admission unless they show a legally sustainable bar to the proceedings.

---