TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds NPA Declaration in Insolvency Case</h1> <h3>Mrs. Bela Juneja Versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. And Anr.</h3> Mrs. Bela Juneja Versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. And Anr. - TMI Issues:Admission of application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 based on default and debt being more than Rupees One Lakh.Analysis:The case involved an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by 'Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.' against 'BHA Associates Private Limited' (Corporate Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority declared the Corporate Debtor as a Non-performing Asset (NPA), which was challenged based on an agreement. However, the Tribunal emphasized that under the I&B Code, once a debt becomes due and is not paid, the insolvency resolution process begins. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in 'M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. - (2018) 1 SCC 407' was cited to explain the triggering of the Code upon default of a debt of Rupees One Lakh or more. The Code differentiates between debts owed to financial creditors and operational creditors, with specific provisions for each.The Tribunal highlighted that under Section 7 of the I&B Code, a financial creditor can trigger the process by submitting an application accompanied by prescribed documents. The adjudicating authority must verify the default within 14 days of application receipt. If satisfied, the application is admitted unless incomplete. The Corporate Debtor can contest the default at this stage, asserting that the debt is not due in law or fact. However, in this case, the Tribunal found that the debt was payable, and default had occurred, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on merit.The Appellant's counsel requested a remand to determine the debt's legality, but this was rejected as the Corporate Debtor did not claim the debt was not payable. Consequently, the Tribunal, while condoning a six-day appeal delay, dismissed the appeal on its merits.
TaxTMI 