TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether pendency of SARFAESI, DRT and Benami proceedings barred initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether debt and default stood proved against the corporate debtor; (iii) Whether the application was barred by limitation; (iv) Whether the admission order suffered from any legal or factual infirmity.
Issue (i): Whether pendency of SARFAESI, DRT and Benami proceedings barred initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: The Code is a special enactment with an overriding effect over inconsistent laws. The pendency of recovery or security enforcement proceedings before other fora does not, by itself, prohibit a financial creditor from invoking the insolvency process under the Code.
Conclusion: The pendency of proceedings under other laws did not bar initiation of proceedings under the Code, and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether debt and default stood proved against the corporate debtor.
Analysis: The financial debt was shown in the application, and the corporate debtor had admitted obtaining the credit facilities and using the secured property as collateral. On that basis, the existence of debt and default was treated as established.
Conclusion: Debt and default were proved, and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether the application was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The date of default was treated as 31.05.2018 and the application was filed on 18.03.2021, which was within the prescribed three-year period under the Limitation Act applicable to insolvency proceedings.
Conclusion: The application was within limitation, and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (iv): Whether the admission order suffered from any legal or factual infirmity.
Analysis: The admission order was found to be reasoned and free from legal or factual error. No ground for appellate interference was made out.
Conclusion: The admission order did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference, and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed in full and the admission of the insolvency petition was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code may proceed notwithstanding parallel recovery or enforcement actions under other laws, and where debt, default, and limitation are established, the admission order will not be interfered with absent legal infirmity.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
