Anju Maurya & Ors. vs Koras Pin Savings Financial Services Nidhi Limited

This Application has been filed on 09.02.2024 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as the “IBC/Code”), by Anju Maurya and others (hereinafter referred to as “Applicants/Financial Creditor”) seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred as “CIRP”) against Koras Pin Savings Financial Services Nidhi Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent/Corporate Debtor’’).

In Part I of the Application, it is averred that the present Application has been jointly filed by 34 individuals, who had individually invested various amounts with the Corporate Debtor with the total amount of debt being in default of Rs. 1,04,17,337/- (Rupees One Crore Four Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Seven only) and the date of default ranges from 14.11.2021 to 20.12.2023.

Part II of the application contains the details of the Corporate Debtor, and it is averred that the Corporate Debtor was incorporated on 11.01.2017. The Registered office of the Corporate Debtor is at Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh 243001. Therefore, as per Section 60(1) of the Code, the present application is under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

In Part III of the application, the Applicants had initially proposed Mr. Kanahiya Lal Goyal to act as the Interim Resolution Professional, however, during the course of proceedings held on 05.08.2026, the Ld. Counsel representing the Financial Creditors sought to file the details of another IRP. In furtherance thereof, the Applicants filed affidavit on 09.08.2026, proposing the name of Ankit Misra having registration number IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N01268/2023-2024/14294 with AFA valid till 30.06.2027 with consent form annexed as Annexure No. 1 with the aforesaid affidavit.

In Part-IV of the Application, the Applicants have stated that the total amount claimed to be in default is Rs. 1,04,17,337/- (Rupees One Crore Four Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Seven only). The Applicants have stated that the date of default ranges from 14.11.2021 to 20.12.2023, corresponding to the respective maturity dates of the deposits, and that the default has continued thereafter.

In Part V of the application, the Applicants have relied upon the copies of the Deposit Certificates along with demand notices to substantiate the debt allegedly disbursed to the Corporate Debtor.

It is submitted that the Financial Creditors had individually invested various amounts with the Corporate Debtor during the period from 14.11.2020 to 20.12.2022, against which Deposit Confirmation Certificates were issued by the Corporate Debtor. The said deposits were stated to have matured and have become repayable after a period of one year.

It is further submitted that upon the respective maturity of the deposits, the Corporate Debtor failed to repay the amounts due to be paid to the Financial Creditors. Consequently, the Financial Creditors issued a demand notices between 06.12.2023 till 08.12.2023, stated to have been posted on 08.01.2024, calling upon the Corporate Debtor to discharge the outstanding dues within a period of 15 days. The Applicants have stated that the said notice was delivered to the Corporate Debtor on 09.01.2024 and that despite expiry of the stipulated period of 15 days on 24.01.2024, the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment of the amounts claimed.

In view of the continued failure of the Corporate Debtor to repay the amounts due under the matured deposits, the Applicants have stated that the Corporate Debtor has no means or resources to discharge its financial obligations. Accordingly, having failed to recover the amounts claimed despite the demand notice, the Financial Creditors were constrained to approach this Tribunal by filing the present Application under Section 7 of the Code.

The Corporate Debtor, in its reply dated 08.08.2024, contested the submissions of the Applicants and made the following submissions:

a. The Respondent submits that the petition is not maintainable as it has not been filed in the personal capacity as financial creditor. It is further submitted that the present case is barred by limitation as the requirement for filing the section 7 petition U/s 7 IBC there is thresh hold limit of One Crore and in the present case, it has been filed as a group of individuals to meet the limitations which is bad in law.

b. It is also stated that the present company petition is not maintainable as the amount claim by the financial creditor is for the purposes of investment and it does not come under the scale of financial creditor, hence this present company petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

c. The Respondent states that as per the deposit confirmation certificate there is clause mentioned that if the amount not claimed by the party, then it will be further auto renewed for the same tenure with the previous rate of interest. It is further submitted that some of the present financial creditors have not claimed the amount and have directly approached this Tribunal for the same which is arbitrary perverse and bad in law.

d. It is submitted that the present Insolvency petition is barred by limitation as corporate debts is of the year 2020 and operational creditor have issued a demand notice in the year 2023 which is after 3 years and not followed the time value of money as per law and hence liable to be dismissed.

e. It is also stated that the corporate debtor has received the demand notice from the financial creditor for the payment of their maturity amount within a period of 15 days which is arbitrary perverse and bad in law and even the demand notice is not under the provision of any law.

We have heard the Ld. Counsels of both parties and also perused the records and examined the pleadings filed before us.

At the outset, it is necessary to examine whether the present Application has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, particularly in view of the specific objection raised by the Corporate Debtor in this regard. From the material available on record, it is evident that the Applicants had individually deposited various amounts with the Corporate Debtor during the period from 14.11.2020 to 20.12.2022, against which Deposit Confirmation Certificates were issued. As per the Applicants, the said deposits were to mature and become repayable after a period of one year.

The Applicants have, in Part-IV of the Application, specifically stated that the dates of default range from 14.11.2021 to 20.12.2023, corresponding to the respective maturity dates of the deposits, for a total default of Rs. 1,04,17,337/- (Rupees One Crore Four Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Seven only), and have further stated that the default has continued thereafter. The record further reveals that the Financial Creditors issued demand notices between 06.12.2023 and 08.12.2023 calling upon the Corporate Debtor to discharge the amounts due, whereby 15 days’ time was granted to the Corporate Debtor to honour the demand. Despite the expiry of the said period on 24.01.2024, the Applicants have stated that the amounts remained unpaid and that a further default consequently occurred. The present Application has been filed on 09.02.2024. Thus, even reckoning the respective dates of default from the dates of maturity of the deposits, as specifically pleaded by the Applicants in Part-IV of the Application, the present Application has been instituted within a period of three years from the respective dates of default. We, therefore, find no merit in the objection raised by the Corporate Debtor that the present Application is barred by limitation, and the same is accordingly rejected.

Having satisfied ourselves on the aspect of limitation, we now proceed to examine the existence of financial debt and default. It is evident from the material placed on record that the present Application has been jointly instituted by 34 individual Applicants who had deposited different amounts with the Corporate Debtor under Deposit Confirmation Certificates. A perusal of the Deposit Confirmation Certificates, annexed as Annexure No. 4 with the present Application, reveals that the deposits were accepted by the Corporate Debtor for a stipulated tenure and were repayable upon maturity. The said certificates record the particulars of the respective depositors, policy numbers, dates of deposit and dates of maturity. The details of the respective Applicants, date of maturity and the corresponding maturity amounts payable are reproduced below for ready reference:

The contention of the Corporate Debtor that the amounts stood automatically renewed in terms of the conditions contained in the Deposit Confirmation Certificates, and therefore, had not become due and payable, requires consideration in light of the terms and conditions of the said certificates, which are reproduced as follows:

Upon perusal of the aforesaid clauses, it is evident that automatic renewal is contemplated only where no maturity instructions have been recorded with the Corporate Debtor. In the present case, the Applicants have asserted that the deposits had matured and that the amounts became payable upon maturity, and thereafter issued demand notices between 06.12.2023 and 08.12.2023 seeking repayment of the amounts due. The said demand for repayment assumes significance inasmuch as it constitutes a clear assertion by the Applicants of their intention to seek repayment rather than renewal of the deposits.

The Corporate Debtor, on the other hand, has merely relied upon the automatic renewal clause and has not placed on record any material to establish that, in respect of the deposits claimed in the present Application, the Applicants had not furnished maturity instructions for repayment or that the deposits were actually renewed after maturity in accordance with Clause 5 of the terms and conditions stipulated in the certificates. In the absence of such material, the plea of automatic renewal cannot, by itself, be accepted to defeat the Applicants' claim of default.

The contention raised by the Corporate Debtor that the amounts deposited by the Applicants were merely in the nature of investments and that the Applicants do not qualify as Financial Creditors is also not sustainable. The material placed on record, particularly the Deposit Confirmation Certificates, demonstrates that the amounts were accepted by the Corporate Debtor as term deposits for a stipulated tenure, with provision for repayment or renewal upon maturity in accordance with the maturity instructions of the depositors.

The certificates further contemplate payment of interest and provide for renewal of the deposits at the prevailing rate of interest in the absence of maturity instructions. The transaction, therefore, involved an obligation on the part of the Corporate Debtor to deal with the amounts deposited in accordance with the terms of the deposit and to repay the same upon maturity where repayment was instructed. Such transaction has the commercial effect of borrowing and, accordingly, cannot be excluded from the ambit of 'financial debt' merely because the Corporate Debtor describes the amounts as investments. The nature of the transaction has to be determined from the substance of the arrangement and the terms governing the deposits.

As regards the objection that the present Application has been filed jointly by several individuals only to satisfy the threshold prescribed under the Code, we find no merit in the same. Section 7 of the Code permits a Financial Creditor, either individually or jointly with other Financial Creditors, to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a Corporate Debtor upon occurrence of default. In this regard reliance has been placed on the order passed by NCLT Kolkata Bench in the matter of Hi-Tech Designs Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Sai Car Sales Pvt. Ltd. in Company Petition No. C.P. (IB)/278(KB)2022, wherein the Adjudicating Authority has reiterated the ratio laid down in Vishnu Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (MANU/RH/1250/2022) as follows:

(Emphasised Added)

In light of the above settled principles of law, the fact that the Applicants have jointly approached this Tribunal in the present case, does not render the Application non-maintainable, particularly when each Applicant has an independent claim arising out of the deposits made with the Corporate Debtor and the aggregate amount claimed to be in default is Rs. 1,04,17,337/-, which exceeds the threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the Code. The objection of the Corporate Debtor on this ground is, therefore, rejected.

We also find no substance in the contention of the Corporate Debtor that the demand notice issued by the Applicants is not a notice contemplated under any provision of the Code and, therefore, cannot form the basis of the present proceedings. The present Application has been filed under Section 7 of the Code, consequently, issuance of a demand notice in the manner contemplated under Section 8 of the Code is not a condition precedent for initiation of proceedings under Section 7. The demand notice issued by the Applicants may, however, be taken into consideration as material evidencing their demand for repayment and their intention not to continue or renew the deposits, subject to the terms and conditions governing the respective deposits.

It is further relevant to consider that the Deposit Confirmation Certificates themselves contemplate two distinct courses upon maturity, namely, repayment or renewal in accordance with the maturity instructions recorded with the Corporate Debtor, and automatic renewal only in the absence of such instructions. Therefore, the mere existence of a clause providing for automatic renewal does not, in itself, establish that the deposits in question were actually renewed. The Corporate Debtor, having raised the specific plea of automatic renewal, has not placed on record material demonstrating that the maturity instructions in respect of the deposits claimed by the Applicants did not provide for repayment and that the respective deposits were consequently renewed in accordance with Clause 5 of the Deposit Confirmation Certificates.

No such material has been brought on record to establish actual renewal of the deposits after their respective maturity dates. On the contrary, the Applicants have asserted their right to repayment and have issued a demand notice seeking payment of the matured amounts. Accordingly, the plea of automatic renewal, in the absence of supporting material demonstrating actual renewal of the deposits in question, cannot be accepted as sufficient to displace the Applicants' claim of default.

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we observe that the amounts deposited by the Applicants with the Corporate Debtor were accepted as term deposits for a stipulated tenure and were governed by the terms and conditions contained in the Deposit Confirmation Certificates. The said certificates provided for repayment or renewal in accordance with the maturity instructions recorded with the Corporate Debtor and contemplated automatic renewal only in the absence of such instructions. The Applicants have claimed that the deposits matured and sought repayment of the amounts due, whereas the Corporate Debtor has failed to establish that the deposits in question were actually renewed in accordance with the terms of the certificates. The deposits, therefore, constitute a financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Code. The failure of the Corporate Debtor to repay the amounts upon maturity, despite the Applicants' demand for repayment, establishes the occurrence of default. The continued non-payment of the amounts claimed by the Applicants further substantiates the default on the part of the Corporate Debtor. Further, the Corporate Debtor has also not disputed the receipt of the deposits.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the Applicants have established the existence of a financial debt and the occurrence of default on the part of the Corporate Debtor. The present Application has also been filed within the prescribed period of limitation and the amount in default exceeds the threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the Code. Accordingly, the conditions stipulated under Section 7(5) of the Code, stand satisfied and the present Application deserves to be admitted. Consequently, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is liable to be initiated against the Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s Koras Pin Savings Financial Services Nidhi Limited.

We note that the Applicants had initially proposed the name of Mr. Kanahiya Lal Goyal, Insolvency Professional, bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-02667/2021-2022/14053, to act as the Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP"). However, upon verification from the website of the IBBI, it was found that he does not hold a valid Authorisation for Assignment ("AFA"). Accordingly, vide order dated 05.08.2026, the Applicants were directed to propose another eligible Insolvency Professional possessing a valid AFA for appointment as the Interim Resolution Professional.

In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Applicants filed an affidavit on 09.08.2026 proposing the name of Mr. Ankit Misra, Insolvency Professional, having IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N01268/2023-2024/14294; Email ID: [email protected] to act as the IRP, who has also filed his consent in Form – 2. The Law Research Associate of this Tribunal, Ms. Akshita Singh, has checked the credentials of Mr. Ankit Misra, and found that there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed Insolvency Professional and also there is nothing adverse against him. Upon verification from the website of IBBI, it is found that the Insolvency Professional holds valid authorization till 30.06.2027. After considering these details, we appoint Mr. Ankit Misra having registration No. IBBI/IPA-IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N01268/2023-2024/14294 as IRP.

Accordingly, this application is admitted u/s 7 of the Code, 2016, under the following terms and conditions.

a. The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;

b. Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;

c. Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002);

d. The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the Corporate Debtor.

We direct the Financial Creditors to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-with the IRP, to meet out the expenses to perform the functions assigned to him in accordance with Regulation 6 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. The amount, however, is subject to adjustment by the CoC as accounted for by the IRP on the conclusion of CIRP.

A certified copy of the order shall be communicated to both the Applicants/Financial Creditor and the Respondent/Corporate Debtor. The learned counsel for the Applicants/Financial Creditor shall deliver a certified copy of this order to the IRP forthwith. The Registry is also directed to send a certified copy of this order to the IRP at her/his e-mail address forthwith.

Accordingly, CP (IB) No. 17/ALD/2024 stands admitted for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s Koras Pin Savings Financial Services Nidhi Limited.

List the matter on 30.09.2026 for filing of the progress report/further proceeding.