Territorial jurisdiction under IBC follows the corporate debtor's registered office, and a complete section 7 claim with proved default is admitted.

Territorial jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is determined by the corporate debtor's registered office under section 60(1), and a contractual clause conferring jurisdiction on another forum cannot displace that statutory rule. On that basis, the objection to jurisdiction was rejected. The section 7 application was also found complete because the record disclosed financial debt, supporting documents, acknowledgements of liability, and proof of default, and the defects initially noted had been cured. The application was therefore admitted, the corporate insolvency resolution process was triggered, an interim resolution professional was appointed, and moratorium followed under the Code.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Adjudicating Authority had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application notwithstanding the contractual clause conferring jurisdiction on courts at Mumbai; (ii) whether the application under section 7 was complete and whether default in repayment of financial debt was established so as to warrant admission of the corporate insolvency resolution process.

Issue (i): whether the Adjudicating Authority had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application notwithstanding the contractual clause conferring jurisdiction on courts at Mumbai.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under section 60(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is determined by the location of the registered office of the corporate debtor. Contractual selection of a forum cannot override statutory jurisdiction where the adjudicating authority is otherwise vested with jurisdiction by the Code. Since the corporate debtor's registered office was at Bhopal, the adjudicating authority having jurisdiction over that place could entertain the insolvency application.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected and the application was held maintainable before the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue (ii): whether the application under section 7 was complete and whether default in repayment of financial debt was established so as to warrant admission of the corporate insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: For admission under section 7, the adjudicating authority must be satisfied that a default has occurred, the application is complete, and the supporting record is not defective. The material on record showed assignment of the original debts, additional financial assistance granted on interest basis, execution of security documents, acknowledgements of outstanding liability, and a notice under the SARFAESI Act. The documents were sufficient to establish financial debt and default, and the defects initially pointed out had been cured.

Conclusion: The application was held complete, default was proved, and admission under section 7(5) was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency application was admitted, the corporate insolvency resolution process was set in motion, an interim resolution professional was appointed, and moratorium followed in terms of the Code.

Ratio Decidendi: In insolvency proceedings, territorial jurisdiction is fixed by section 60(1) of the Code by reference to the corporate debtor's registered office, and an application under section 7 must be admitted once a complete application discloses a financial debt and default supported by credible material.

---