Assigned debt and SARFAESI remedies do not bar a maintainable insolvency petition once default and authority are proved.

A legally assigned financial debt may be enforced by the assignee as a financial creditor under section 7, and the debtor cannot defeat maintainability merely because the debt was transferred. The board authorisation was upheld as valid where the signatory was specifically authorised by a board resolution passed by circulation and duly certified. Limitation was rejected on the stated reasoning that the right to apply arose after the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code came into force. Pending or invoked SARFAESI ures did not bar admission of the insolvency application once default and maintainability were established, and the corporate insolvency resolution process was admitted with moratorium and an interim resolution professional.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant, as assignee of the debt, was a financial creditor entitled to maintain the application under section 7; (ii) whether the board authorisation executed in favour of the signatory was valid; (iii) whether the application was barred by limitation; and (iv) whether pendency or invocation of SARFAESI proceedings barred admission of the section 7 application.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant, as assignee of the debt, was a financial creditor entitled to maintain the application under section 7.

Analysis: A financial creditor includes a person to whom a financial debt is legally assigned or transferred. The debt arose from loan facilities disbursed by the original lender, default had occurred, and the assignment agreement was found to be a registered and legally executed document. The debtor cannot resist the assignee's status merely on the ground that the debt was transferred to it. The admitted debt therefore continued as a financial debt enforceable by the assignee.

Conclusion: The applicant was held to be a financial creditor competent to invoke section 7.

Issue (ii): Whether the board authorisation executed in favour of the signatory was valid.

Analysis: The authorisation produced was a certified copy of a resolution passed by circulation by the board of directors. The signatory was specifically authorised, and the company secretary's certification did not vitiate the resolution. No defect in authority was found.

Conclusion: The authorisation was held to be valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the application was barred by limitation.

Analysis: In proceedings under section 7, the relevant right to apply arose after the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code came into force. The cited precedents treated the Limitation Act as not barring such applications in the circumstances considered. The claim of time-bar was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The application was held not to be barred by limitation.

Issue (iv): Whether pendency or invocation of SARFAESI proceedings barred admission of the section 7 application.

Analysis: Prior invocation of SARFAESI remedies does not prevent consideration of a section 7 application where default is otherwise proved and the application is maintainable. The existence of security enforcement steps did not defeat the insolvency proceeding.

Conclusion: SARFAESI proceedings were held not to bar admission of the application.

Final Conclusion: The application was complete, default was proved, and the corporate insolvency resolution process was admitted with moratorium and appointment of an interim resolution professional.

Ratio Decidendi: A legally assigned financial debt may be enforced by the assignee as a financial creditor under section 7, and once default is established, objections based on limitation, lack of privity, or parallel SARFAESI action do not defeat admission of the insolvency petition.

---