Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the material on record established the existence of debt and default so as to justify admission of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and whether the alleged defect in stamping of the promissory note prevented such admission.
Analysis: The record contained a loan agreement showing disbursal of Rs. 70,00,000 with interest at 15% per annum, an unsecured demand promissory note executed as security, an audit report reflecting the loan in the corporate debtor's balance sheet under non-current liabilities, and a default record authenticated by the information utility. Taken together, these materials established the borrowing, the liability, and the default. The contention that the loan was merely a business loan was found inconsistent with the loan documents. The objection based on stamping was held not to displace the substantive evidence of debt and default, and the defect, even if assumed, was treated as not overriding the claim under Section 7 where the debt and default were otherwise proved.
Conclusion: The existence of debt and default was proved, and the objection regarding stamping did not bar admission of the Section 7 application.
Ratio Decidendi: For admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the decisive inquiry is whether debt and default are established on the evidence; a stamping objection to a supporting instrument does not defeat the application where liability and default are independently proved.