Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: authorization of representative and failure to meet Section 65 standard leads to dismissal

Initiation of corporate insolvency concerned alleged collusive and malicious Section 7 filing and a Section 65 recall request. The tribunal found the corporate debtor had validly authorised a named representative by board resolution to appear and contest proceedings, undermining claims that the filing was fraudulent; the representative's association with both creditor and debtor did not by itself prove malice. The tribunal applied the strict standard of proof required for recall under Section 65 and held the appellant failed to meet it, so the adjudicating authority correctly rejected the Section 65 application and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by the Financial Creditor by filing a Section 7 petition was fraudulent, malicious or a collusive proceeding and whether the application under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking recall of the admission order should be allowed.

Analysis: The legal framework comprises Section 7 (initiation and admission of a Section 7 petition on proof of debt and default) and Section 65 (power to reject or recall admission where petition is found to be fraudulent, malicious or collusive) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The operative facts include an earlier Section 7 petition resolved by a Settlement Agreement dated 13.04.2022, subsequent dishonour of cheques and a fresh Section 7 petition admitted on 15.12.2023. The applicant filed I.A. under Section 65 after eight months of admission, alleging collusion and malafide initiation, pointing to overlap of individuals connected with the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor and to a person who issued a loan recall notice also verifying the CD's reply. The material placed on record included the Settlement Agreement, board resolution and power of attorney authorizing representation, balance sheets acknowledging liability and evidence of dishonoured cheques. The requisite strict standard of proof under Section 65 requires clear material establishing that the petition was instituted fraudulently, maliciously or in collusion; allegations alone without supporting decisive evidence do not meet that threshold. The record shows admission of the second Section 7 petition was founded on proved debt and default arising after the Settlement Agreement and dishonour of payment, and the board resolution and other documents undermined the contention that representation by the same individual rendered the initiation collusive or malicious.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the Appellants; the applicants failed to satisfy the strict standard of proof required under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Section 65 application is rejected and the appeal is dismissed (in favour of the Respondent).

---