2026 (1) TMI 1623

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s: Mr. Rajashekar Rao Salvaji, Advocate for R1 & R2. ORDER PER : MR. JATINDRANATH SWAIN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL): 1. The instant Company Appeal, CA(AT)(Ins) No. 547/2025, has been filed by Mr. P. Narotham Rao, who is the erstwhile Director and shareholder of M/s Pravista Infra Private Limited, a real-estate company developing a single residential project at Karimnagar, Telangana, comprising about 500 residential units in five towers spreading over 4 acres of land. In the said Company Appeal, he seeks to challenge the order dated 07.10.2025 that was passed by Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad Bench-2 in CP(IB) No. 120/7/HDB/2024, by virtue of which M/s Pravista Infra Pvt Ltd has been directed to be admitted into CIRP under section 7 of I&B Code, 2016 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icate (R.C. No. 143/2022) was issued thereafter on 26.07.2022 for Rs. 10.82 crore. 6. He has contended that, before the Recovery Certificate was issued, he had repaid nearly Rs. 50 lakh which was not taken into account, which shows that the Recovery Certificate was issued without application of mind. He has also stated that he has filed an application on 10.01.2025 before the Recovery Officer, DRT Hyderabad, to set aside the ex-parte decree and the adjudication on the said recovery certificate still remains pending. 7. He has further stated that even despite the fact, that while the DRT matter is sub judice, the bank filed application under Section 7 of the Code, that was numbered as CP (IB) No. 120/7/HDB/2024 before the NCLT, Hyderab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as above, he has pressed for grant of interim stay of the CIRP proceedings. 10. The adjudicating authority in its findings as recorded in the impugned order has recorded that no material has been placed on record by the Appellant to demonstrate the outcome of the negotiations, on the one-time settlement, that the appellant has been intentionally engaged in litigation to delay the SARFAESI proceedings, that the liability has been crystallised by a recovery certificate which under law constitutes a ``financial debt'' under section 5(8) of the code as per the ratio laid down by honourable Apex Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus A. Balakrishnan & Another, and that pendency of parallel recovery actions, cannot deprive the financial ....