Section 7 insolvency admission turns on debt, default and limitation; curable procedural defects do not defeat a complete application.

At the Section 7 admission stage, the inquiry is confined to whether financial debt, default, completeness of the application, and limitation are established. Here, the application was treated as duly authorised, and the debt and default were supported by loan and security documents, an assignment deed, audited balance sheets, and the debtor's own acknowledgments. The limitation objection failed because the acknowledgments and filing date brought the claim within time. Information utility record absence, stamping defects, lack of a Section 65B certificate, and defective service under Rule 4(3) were treated as directory or curable procedural lapses that did not defeat admission. The insolvency admission order was upheld and the technical objections were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the admission of the Section 7 insolvency petition could be interfered with on the grounds of alleged procedural defects, including authorization, information utility compliance, stamping, Section 65B compliance, service under Rule 4(3), and limitation, when the record otherwise established financial debt and default.

Analysis: The application was found to be duly authorised after the board resolutions were brought on record. The debt originally advanced by the bank and subsequently assigned to the respondent was supported by loan documents, security documents, the assignment deed, audited balance sheets, and the debtor's own email and account records acknowledging liability. The default and financial distress were therefore treated as established. The objection on limitation was rejected in view of the acknowledgments and the filing date. The absence of an information utility record was held to be directory and not fatal in the facts. The objections based on inadequate stamping and the absence of a Section 65B certificate were also treated as curable or non-fatal at the admission stage. The service defect under Rule 4(3) was held to be a rectifiable procedural lapse that stood cured. The appellate forum reiterated that, at the Section 7 stage, the enquiry is confined to the existence of financial debt, default, and completeness and limitation of the application.

Conclusion: The insolvency admission order was upheld and the technical objections raised by the appellant were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: At the Section 7 admission stage, curable procedural defects do not defeat an otherwise complete application where financial debt and default are established and the claim is within limitation.

---