Ankush Saluja vs Urmila Goyal & Anr.

21.01.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

This Appeal has been filed against an order dated 25.09.2025 by which order Adjudicating Authority has admitted Section 7 application filed by the Respondent (Financial Creditor) herein. An application under Section 7 was filed by the Financial Creditor on 21.12.2019. Notices were issued in proceedings; the Corporate Debtor appeared and filed its reply. Parties were heard and the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order admitted Section 7 application. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noted the settlement agreement dated 27.01.2021 which was entered between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor where Corporate Debtor undertook to pay an amount of Rs. 5,53,50,000/- in full and final settlement. The part-IV of the Application filed under Section 7 provides as follows:

Part-IV gives total amount of Financial Debt claimed was of Rs. 6,78,79,674/- as on 13.11.2019. Challenging the order dated 25.09.2025 this Appeal has been filed. When the Appeal was heard, this Tribunal passed following order on 14.10.2025:

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the Corporate Debtor was a registered NBFC which registration was made by the RBI on 10.05.2000 and which registration operated till 18.09.2018. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor being a registered NBFC at the time of granting of the financial facility, the application was not maintainable against the NBFC as it is not a corporate person within the definition of Section 3(7) of the IBC, 2016. Counsel for the Appellant relying on the Judgment of this Tribunal in ‘Akhilesh Kumar Vs. HDFC Bank’ CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 895 of 2023, submits that this Tribunal for deciding the said issue has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority whereas in the present case the issue was not raised by either of the parties before the Adjudicating Authority.

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent refuting the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the debt and default was admitted which is reflected in the settlement agreement entered between the parties. Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in admitting Section 7 application, on the date as when Section 7 application was filed the Corporate Debtor was no longer registered NBFC, hence, there was no prohibition from filing Section 7 petition against the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor who had lost his character of the NBFC shall not be covered by the exclusion in the definition of Section 3(7) of the IBC, 2016.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the reply which has been filed by the Respondent in this Appeal, in Annexure R-1, the letter dated 13.11.2018 of the RBI has been brought on record where RBI has cancelled the certification of registration of 32 NBFC’s and in the said list the Corporate Debtor has been reflected at item No. 23 whose registration has been cancelled w.e.f. 18.09.2018.

Section 3(7) of the IBC, 2016 provides, which is as follows:

There can be no dispute to the proposition as submitted by the Counsel for the Appellant that the NBFC is not a corporate person within the meaning of Section 3(7) hence it is excluded from Section 3(7) of the IBC, 2016. Section 7 of the IBC provides for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by a Financial Creditor. Section 6 provides who can initiate proceedings against any corporate person. Counsel for the Appellant has referred to Section 3(17) which is definition of Financial Service Provider, which is as follows:

From the cancellation the registration of the Corporate Debtor as NBFC by the RBI w.e.f. 18.09.2018, the Corporate Debtor no longer continues as a Financial Service Provider. When Corporate Debtor does not continue as a Financial Service Provider, the exclusion as provided under Section 3(7) shall not be applicable and it shall not be open to the Appellant to contend that the Section 7 application was not maintainable.

Now coming to the Judgment of this Tribunal in Akhilesh Kumar Vs. HDFC Bank’ CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 895 of 2023, relied by the Appellant, in the said case, Section 7 application was filed by the HDFC Bank against the Corporate Debtor. An application was filed by the Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority bringing on record the certificate and other relevant document to prove that Corporate Debtor is a Financial Service Provider, which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority as infructuous and admitted Section 7 application. In the said background, this Tribunal took the view that the matter need to be remanded before the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. In para 9 of the Judgment, this Tribunal made following observations:

The present is not a case where the Corporate Debtor was continuing as Financial Service Provider on the date when application under Section 7 was filed. The certificate cancelling registration has been brought on record by the Respondent in this Appeal therefore is no longer any issue which require determination, as to the Corporate Debtor being a Financial Service Provider. We, thus, are of the view that the above Judgment in no manner help the Appellant in the present case.

The Adjudicating Authority after having found the debt and default has rightly admitted Section 7 application. We do not find any error in the order admitting Section 7 application. The Appeal is dismissed. Interim Order is vacated. The period during which interim order operated in this Appeal shall be excluded from the CIRP period. CIRP to proceed in accordance with law.