Section 7 insolvency filing, authority and parallel proceedings did not bar admission once default and statutory requirements were proved.

An application under Section 7 was maintainable where it was filed by an authorised officer acting under a general power of attorney and a specific letter of authority, and the objection to competence was rejected. Pending writ proceedings and an interim High Court order dealing with secured assets did not operate as a bar to initiation or admission of the insolvency petition because no express restraint on the adjudicating authority was shown. On the materials produced, including loan documents, account records and the debtor's own inability to meet instalments, default and the other statutory requirements for admission were established, so the application was admitted and CIRP with moratorium was directed to commence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under Section 7 was instituted by a duly authorised person; (ii) Whether the pending writ proceedings and interim order of the High Court barred admission of the insolvency application; (iii) Whether default and the other requirements for admission under Section 7 were established.

Issue (i): Whether the application under Section 7 was instituted by a duly authorised person.

Analysis: The financial creditor produced an older general power of attorney conferring authority to initiate insolvency proceedings, and also a specific letter of authority issued in 2018 authorising the concerned officer to file the corporate insolvency resolution process application, file claims, receive documents and engage counsel. The Court also relied on the principle that an authorised agent of a financial creditor can present such an application.

Conclusion: The objection to authority was rejected and the application was held to be properly instituted.

Issue (ii): Whether the pending writ proceedings and interim order of the High Court barred admission of the insolvency application.

Analysis: The interim order in the writ proceedings was read as regulating the treatment of the secured assets under the SARFAESI framework and not as prohibiting initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. No express restraint on the adjudicating authority was shown. The pendency of other proceedings was therefore not treated as a legal bar to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 7.

Conclusion: The pendency of the writ proceedings and the interim order did not bar admission of the insolvency application.

Issue (iii): Whether default and the other requirements for admission under Section 7 were established.

Analysis: The loan documents, sanction letter, account records and other materials established the borrowing and non-payment. The corporate debtor also admitted inability to pay instalments on time. The Court held that default was proved, and that the application was otherwise complete because evidence of default and the proposed resolution professional were placed on record.

Conclusion: Default and the statutory requirements for admission under Section 7 were established, and the application was admitted.

Final Conclusion: The corporate insolvency resolution process was directed to commence against the corporate debtor, together with moratorium and consequential steps under the Code.

Ratio Decidendi: An insolvency application under Section 7 is maintainable when filed by an authorised officer, and once default and completion of the statutory requirements are established, pendency of parallel proceedings does not by itself preclude admission.

---