Audited accounts showing nil liability and receivables defeat claimed financial debt in IBC s.7 insolvency bid; appeal dismissed

In a s.7 IBC application, the dominant issue was whether a "financial debt" existed to trigger CIRP. The AT held that the Adjudicating Authority rightly relied on the corporate debtor's audited financial statement dated 31.03.2021, prepared prior to initiation of s.7 proceedings in 2024, which recorded nil liability to the financial creditor and reflected receivables from the financial creditor to the corporate debtor; this contemporaneous acknowledgment negated the existence of debt notwithstanding the contention that unilateral set-off was barred by the term sheet. The pre-existing dispute between the parties' stakeholders further supported non-admission. The appeal was dismissed and rejection of the s.7 application was affirmed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether, on the material placed, an operationally enforceable "financial debt" remained due and payable so as to constitute "default" warranting admission of an application under Section 7.

2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority committed error in relying on the Corporate Debtor's audited financial statements (showing NIL loan payable and showing receivables from the Financial Creditor) to conclude absence of debt/default.

3. Whether, in the facts, the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to trigger insolvency was justified given the underlying dispute between the concerned shareholder groups and the Court's conclusion that the application was not a proper case for initiation of insolvency resolution.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Existence of financial debt and default for Section 7 admission

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered that the Corporate Debtor did not dispute receipt of funds and that repayments had been made, but the decisive question was whether any amount remained due and payable at the time relevant for insolvency initiation. The Court noted that the Corporate Debtor's financial statements (prepared much prior to the Section 7 filing) reflected NIL amount due towards the alleged loan as on the stated date and also recorded amounts receivable by the Corporate Debtor from the Financial Creditor. On these facts, the Court agreed with the Adjudicating Authority that the record did not support subsisting debt/default capable of grounding insolvency initiation.

Conclusion: The Court upheld the finding that there was no debt in respect of which insolvency could be proceeded with, and therefore no error in rejecting Section 7 admission.

Issue 2: Evidentiary reliance on audited financial statements showing NIL liability

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasised that the audited financial statement relied upon was as on 31.03.2021, i.e., much before initiation of Section 7 proceedings in 2024, and thus constituted contemporaneous evidence of the parties' financial positioning prior to the insolvency trigger attempt. Since the audited financial statement reflected NIL amount payable to the related party and also reflected receivables from the Financial Creditor, the Court held that the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in relying on these statements to conclude absence of a debt for which insolvency could be initiated.

Conclusion: Reliance on the Corporate Debtor's audited financial statements to determine the absence of an actionable debt/default was affirmed as correct on the facts.

Issue 3: Justification for refusing insolvency initiation in light of broader inter se disputes

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the relevance of the admitted presence of dispute between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor's shareholders (as noticed by the Adjudicating Authority) while assessing whether insolvency initiation was warranted on the presented facts. Coupled with the contemporaneous financial statements indicating no outstanding debt, the Court concluded that refusal to initiate insolvency "cannot be faulted" in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The Court affirmed the refusal to initiate insolvency resolution and dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the impugned order.

---