Section 95 insolvency filings: procedural particulars under the Code did not defeat admission where debt was already disclosed and acknowledged.

Section 95 applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were not liable to rejection merely because the debt particulars were said to be insufficient under Section 95(4)(a). The text treats that requirement as procedural and facilitative, meant to give the Adjudicating Authority prima facie particulars, not as a rigid bar where the debt and liability were already disclosed in the application and supporting documents. Prior SARFAESI and DRT proceedings, including a compromise reflecting an admitted and settled liability, reinforced that the debt was already acknowledged. A challenge raised for the first time at the appellate stage could not be used to build a new objection. The admission orders were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applications under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were liable to be rejected for alleged non-compliance with Section 95(4)(a) on the ground that the debt particulars were not sufficiently set out.

Analysis: The personal guarantors had executed guarantee deeds for the corporate debtor's borrowings, the debt had already been acknowledged in prior SARFAESI and DRT proceedings, and the compromise entered before the DRT reflected an admitted and settled liability. The requirement in Section 95(4)(a) was treated as a procedural and facilitating provision meant to supply the Adjudicating Authority with prima facie particulars, not as a rigid ground to defeat the application where the debt and liability were already disclosed through the application and supporting materials. The challenge was also raised for the first time at the appellate stage and could not be used to carve out a new case against admission.

Conclusion: The alleged defect under Section 95(4)(a) did not vitiate the insolvency applications, and the admission orders were upheld against the appellants.

---