https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785146 In Section 7 insolvency proceedings, admission depends on proof of financial debt and default, and the adjudicatory forum should not consider commercial viability, project completion, anticipated receivables, or stakeholder hardship once those ingredients are established. The narrow Vidarbha Industries exception does not displace that rule where default is admitted, and parallel SARFAESI or DRT proceedings do not bar CIRP absent specific proof of abuse of process. A housing society or homebuyers' association has no independent locus to intervene in pre-admission Section 7 proceedings unless the Code confers such participation; Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules cannot create that substantive right. The CIRP admission and refusal of intervention were therefore upheld. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jan 2026 07:36:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785146 In Section 7 insolvency proceedings, admission depends on proof of financial debt and default, and the adjudicatory forum should not consider commercial viability, project completion, anticipated receivables, or stakeholder hardship once those ingredients are established. The narrow Vidarbha Industries exception does not displace that rule where default is admitted, and parallel SARFAESI or DRT proceedings do not bar CIRP absent specific proof of abuse of process. A housing society or homebuyers' association has no independent locus to intervene in pre-admission Section 7 proceedings unless the Code confers such participation; Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules cannot create that substantive right. The CIRP admission and refusal of intervention were therefore upheld. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785146