Procedural defects in CIRP proceedings are curable; admission sustained where financial debt and default are established by corroborative evidence.

Adjudicatory admission under Section 7 was upheld where the Tribunal treated alleged procedural defects as curable and non-jurisdictional: filings with information utilities are directory, inadequate stamping and authorization defects can be rectified, and electronic evidence formalities do not automatically invalidate admission when corroborative material (assignment records, security documents, audited acknowledgements, emails) establishes existence of financial debt and occurrence of default. The Tribunal found cure of Rule 4(3) defects and no jurisdictional error or perversity; the appeal was dismissed and CIRP initiation sustained in favour of the financial creditor.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority's admission of the Section 7 petition and initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was vitiated by alleged procedural irregularities including non-service of an additional affidavit, non-compliance with Rule 4(3) of the IBC (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, non-filing of record with an information utility under Regulation 20(1A) of the IBBI (Information Utilities) Regulations, 2017, non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, inadequate stamping of loan documents, defects in authorization, and related technical objections.

Analysis: The legal framework for admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 requires examination of (a) existence of a financial debt, (b) occurrence of default, and (c) completeness and limitation. Procedural defects such as failure to serve or filing additional affidavits after reservation were assessed against whether they were curable or rectifiable and whether they caused jurisdictional error or prejudice affecting the core requirements for admission. The Tribunal applied established principles that information utility filing is directory (Regulation 20(1A) of the IBBI (Information Utilities) Regulations, 2017), that inadequate stamping is a curable defect at the admission stage, that Section 65B requirements for electronic evidence do not necessarily invalidate admission where other corroborative material (including acknowledgements in audited accounts and email admissions) establish debt and default, and that authorization defects can be cured by subsequent board resolutions. The Tribunal evaluated the record showing assignment of debt, security documentation, acknowledgement in audited financial statements and email admissions, proof of service and affidavit curing of the Rule 4(3) defect, and the quantum of default to determine whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting the petition.

Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority correctly recorded existence of a financial debt and occurrence of default, that the procedural defects were either cured or were rectifiable/curable and did not vitiate jurisdiction, and that no jurisdictional error or perversity warranted interference under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal is dismissed and the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor is sustained in favour of the Financial Creditor/Respondent.

---