Section 7 petition vacated: applicant lacked standing after unauthorized assignment to Cooperative Bank withdrawn; admission set aside

NCLAT held the Section 7 application inadmissible and set aside the impugned admission. The purported assignment by the Cooperative Bank to the applicant was withdrawn and declared unauthorized; the applicant therefore was not a Financial Creditor of the corporate debtor and lacked standing to initiate CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority erred by admitting the Section 7 petition without considering the Cooperative Bank's averments and related proceedings pending before the HC. Appeal allowed and admission under Section 7 vacated.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) founded solely on an alleged assignment of a financial debt is maintainable when the assignment is recorded only in minutes of settlement before a High Court and no separate assignment documentation exists.

2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority could admit a Section 7 application relying on the aforesaid recorded assignment when the asserted assignor (the Bank) had contested the assignment, sought intervention before the Adjudicating Authority and returned amounts paid under the settlement.

3. Whether a party conducting business from corporate debtor's premises can invoke the Explanation to Section 7(1) (i.e., file on behalf of another financial creditor) without establishing independent status as a financial creditor by way of a disbursement giving rise to a financial debt.

4. What is the legal effect of a subsequent recall/setting aside by the High Court of the minutes/order on which a Section 7 application was founded, and whether that vitiates the basis of the Section 7 claim.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of Section 7 application founded solely on minutes of settlement recording assignment

Legal framework: Section 7 requires that the applicant be a "financial creditor" as defined under the IBC; an application founded on assignment must be supported by cogent documentation evidencing assignment and rights transferred. The Explanation to Section 7 allows an application by a person on behalf of a financial creditor but does not obviate the requirement that the applicant itself be a financial creditor when invoking the provision.

Precedent Treatment: This Tribunal's earlier decision (referred to in the judgment) establishes that the applicant must first establish itself as a financial creditor before taking shelter under the Explanation to Section 7.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Section 7 pleading expressly relied on the Minutes of Order (20.10.2022) and the High Court order adopting those minutes as the sole basis of assignment. There was no separate assignment instrument executed by the Bank in favour of the applicant. Where the application is founded only on such minutes, and there is no independent evidence of assignment or disbursement by the applicant to the corporate debtor, the applicant cannot be treated as a financial creditor entitled to maintain Section 7.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A Section 7 applicant founded solely on a recorded settlement/minutes that purports assignment must produce independent documentary evidence of assignment or otherwise establish financial creditor status; reliance solely on minutes adopted by a court order is insufficient.

Conclusion: Section 7 application based only on the minutes-recorded assignment, without separate assignment documentation or independent disbursement establishing applicant as financial creditor, is not maintainable.

Issue 2: Adjudicating Authority's duty to consider contested assignment and Bank's intervention before admitting Section 7

Legal framework: Adjudicating Authority must consider material brought on record and adversarial pleadings before admitting CIRP; where third party asserts that the basis of the applicant's claim (assignment) is contested or withdrawn, those facts must be adjudicated or properly examined before admission.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal emphasized the need to heed interventions and material that negate the assignment relied upon by the applicant.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Bank filed an intervention and communicated that the applicant was ineligible, withdrew the OTS, and returned payments. These facts were on record and an intervention application by the Bank awaited adjudication. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the Section 7 application relying on the High Court order approving minutes, without deciding the Bank's intervention or addressing the Bank's contention that assignment was withdrawn and unlawful. Admission despite pending contested material was held unsustainable.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Admission of CIRP cannot proceed by reliance on contested recorded minutes where the assignor has repudiated/withdrawn the assignment and has sought intervention; the Adjudicating Authority must consider such contested material before admission.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting the Section 7 application without adjudicating the Bank's intervention and the contested/withdrawn nature of the assignment.

Issue 3: Applicability and limits of the Explanation to Section 7(1) where applicant claims to act on behalf of another financial creditor

Legal framework: Explanation to Section 7(1) permits an application by any other person on behalf of a financial creditor as may be notified, but the applicant invoking default owed to another financial creditor must itself qualify as a financial creditor if the applicant seeks to rely on the Explanation to assert defaults owed to other financial creditors; Section 7(1) requires the applicant to be a financial creditor in the first instance.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal reiterated its prior ruling that the applicant must first establish itself as a financial creditor before invoking the Explanation to assert defaults owed to other financial creditors.

Interpretation and reasoning: The applicant had not made any disbursement to the corporate debtor that would constitute a financial debt (payments made were for protection of possession in writ proceedings, not disbursement to the corporate debtor for value). Therefore, the applicant could not be treated as a financial creditor and could not maintain Section 7 on the basis of defaults owed to the Bank.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Explanation to Section 7 does not permit an entity that is not itself a financial creditor to file a Section 7 application predicated on the default of another creditor unless it has, on its own facts, established financial creditor status.

Conclusion: The applicant was not a financial creditor and could not rely on the Explanation to Section 7 to maintain the application for the Bank's debt.

Issue 4: Consequence of High Court's subsequent recall/setting aside of the minutes/order on which Section 7 was based

Legal framework: Where a Section 7 application is premised on a settlement/minutes which are subsequently recalled/declared unlawful by the court that earlier recorded them, that foundational basis is extinguished; an adjudicatory forum must assess the effect of such recall on any proceedings founded on those minutes.

Precedent Treatment: The High Court's recall was analyzed and adopted as determinative of the illegality of the assignment and compromise; the Tribunal gave effect to that recall in evaluating maintainability of the Section 7 application.

Interpretation and reasoning: The High Court, after detailed consideration, held that the transfer/assignment was unlawful under applicable RBI Directions and that the compromise affected rights of the corporate debtor without its consent; the High Court recalled its earlier order and minutes. The recalled order removed the only legal imprimatur supporting the applicant's claim. Consequently, the applicant no longer possessed any right to claim to be a financial creditor based on that assignment; the Section 7 petition's foundation was thereby knocked out.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A court's recall of an order/minutes that was the sole basis for an assignment negates the legal foundation of any insolvency petition predicated on that assignment; such insolvency petitions cannot stand where the underlying assignment is held unlawful and recalled.

Conclusion: The High Court's recall of the minutes/order deprived the applicant of any valid assignment-based entitlement; admission of Section 7 on that erased basis was unsustainable and deserved to be set aside.

Overall Conclusion and Disposition

Admission of the Section 7 application was impermissible: the petition was founded solely on a minutes-recorded assignment without separate assignment documentation; the assignor (Bank) had contested and withdrawn the OTS and returned payments; the applicant was not a financial creditor by way of any disbursement; and the High Court subsequently recalled the minutes/order as unlawful under RBI Directions. The Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting the petition without resolving the Bank's intervention and contested facts. Consequently, the admission was set aside and the Section 7 application dismissed.

---