Financial debt and default can be proved by acknowledgments and documents, even without information utility records, in insolvency proceedings.

Repeated acknowledgments through promissory notes, cheques, confirmations and e-mails were treated as sufficient to show limitation was not fatal and that the right to initiate insolvency had been exercised within time. The tribunal found the advances had the commercial effect of borrowing, creating financial debt supported by time-value-of-money consideration, agreed interest and repayment terms. It also accepted documentary proof of default without information utility records, upheld a joint application by multiple financial creditors, treated a fresh power of attorney as curing authorisation defects, and held that internal articles-based restrictions could not be used by the debtor to avoid liability after accepting and using the funds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the transactions constituted financial debt and a financial transaction; (iii) Whether interest at 24% per annum was exorbitant and hit by the relevant interest-prohibition legislation; (iv) Whether the documents produced were sufficient to prove default in the absence of information utility records and a formal financial contract; (v) Whether the financial creditors could jointly maintain the application notwithstanding that all were not corporate persons; (vi) Whether the application was maintainable on the basis of authorisation through power of attorney; (vii) Whether borrowing contrary to the articles of association rendered the debt non-binding on the corporate debtor.

Issue (i): Whether the claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The transactions were supported by repeated acknowledgments, including promissory notes, cheques, confirmations and e-mails, and the renewed promissory notes were executed on 15.05.2015. The right to apply under the insolvency code had accrued when the code came into force, and the application was filed within the permissible period. The subsequent insertion of the limitation provision did not defeat the claim on the facts recorded.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the corporate debtor and in favour of the financial creditors.

Issue (ii): Whether the transactions constituted financial debt and a financial transaction.

Analysis: The mortgage deed, memorandum of agreements, promissory notes and subsequent conduct showed that money had been advanced against consideration for the time value of money, with agreed interest and repayment terms. The transactions had the commercial effect of borrowing, and the continuing acknowledgments reinforced the character of the debt.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the financial creditors and against the corporate debtor.

Issue (iii): Whether interest at 24% per annum was exorbitant and hit by the relevant interest-prohibition legislation.

Analysis: The agreed rate was part of the original bargain and was reflected in the documents executed by the corporate debtor. In the circumstances, the rate was not shown to be unconscionable or unlawfully excessive, especially where the debtor had itself acted on the same commercial terms and had not established any basis for statutory interference.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the corporate debtor and in favour of the financial creditors.

Issue (iv): Whether the documents produced were sufficient to prove default in the absence of information utility records and a formal financial contract.

Analysis: The tribunal relied on the mortgage deed, memoranda, promissory notes, cheques, e-mails and computation sheets as reliable evidence of the debt and default. Electronic evidence objections were relaxed in the facts, the promissory notes were admitted, and the absence of information utility records did not prevent reliance on other cogent material showing default.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the financial creditors and against the corporate debtor.

Issue (v): Whether the financial creditors could jointly maintain the application notwithstanding that all were not corporate persons.

Analysis: The code defines financial creditor and person broadly to include individuals, HUFs, companies and other entities. The form could not control the substantive provisions of the statute, and a joint application by several eligible financial creditors was maintainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the financial creditors and against the corporate debtor.

Issue (vi): Whether the application was maintainable on the basis of authorisation through power of attorney.

Analysis: A duly authorised person could file the application on behalf of the financial creditors, and the defect in the earlier authorisation was cured by a fresh power of attorney filed on record. The objection therefore did not survive.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the financial creditors and against the corporate debtor.

Issue (vii): Whether borrowing contrary to the articles of association rendered the debt non-binding on the corporate debtor.

Analysis: A party cannot rely on its own wrongdoing to avoid liability. If the corporate debtor had borrowed funds contrary to its internal restrictions, it could not use that breach to defeat the creditor's claim after having accepted and utilised the money.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the corporate debtor and in favour of the financial creditors.

Final Conclusion: The application under Section 7 was complete, default was established, and commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process was ordered with moratorium and appointment of the interim resolution professional.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated acknowledgments and documentary records can establish a financial debt and default for admission under Section 7, and a debtor cannot defeat insolvency proceedings by disputing the debt after having executed and renewed the underlying instruments.

---