Section 65 mala fide challenge fails where debt and default are established and the assignee creditor lawfully initiates insolvency

Where debt and default are already established, an insolvency application under Section 7 of the IBC cannot be defeated by a bare allegation that it was fraudulently or maliciously initiated under Section 65. The Tribunal noted that the financial debt had been assigned by the original lender, the corporate debtor's liability was reflected in its balance sheets, and prior findings had already confirmed default. On that material, the plea of mala fide initiation failed because no specific facts showed fraudulent intent, and the admission orders were upheld as properly made.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Section 7 proceedings were liable to be dismissed on the allegation that they were fraudulently and maliciously initiated under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) whether the orders admitting the Section 7 applications suffered from any error when debt and default stood established.

Issue (i): whether the Section 7 proceedings were liable to be dismissed on the allegation that they were fraudulently and maliciously initiated under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Analysis: The allegation of mala fides was considered against the backdrop of repeated restructuring arrangements, acknowledged liability in the balance sheets, and the earlier conclusion that the corporate debtor had committed default. The assignee financial creditor had acquired the debt from the original lender and initiated proceedings on that basis. The finding was that a proceeding founded on an established debt and default could not be branded as malicious or fraudulent merely because the assignee had taken action for recovery.

Conclusion: The plea under Section 65 failed and the allegation of fraudulent or malicious initiation was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the orders admitting the Section 7 applications suffered from any error when debt and default stood established

Analysis: The earlier adjudication and appellate findings had already recognized debt and default, and the challenge based on the restructuring stipulations had been rejected by the Supreme Court. In that context, the Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the admission orders. The applications were therefore treated as properly admitted on the established material.

Conclusion: The admission orders were upheld and the challenge to them failed.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency initiation was sustained, and the appeals were rejected because the record disclosed subsisting debt and default with no tenable case of fraud or mala fides.

Ratio Decidendi: Where debt and default are established and the creditor acts as assignee of the original lender, an insolvency application under Section 7 cannot be defeated on a bare allegation of mala fide or fraudulent initiation under Section 65 without material particulars.

---