AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The instant petition is filed on behalf of Prudent ARC Limited (Prudent Trust-82/23) (“Petitioner” / “Financial Creditor”) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) against M/s Super Property Maintenance Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor” / “CD”) seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against the Corporate Debtor.
Prudent ARC Limited (acting as Trustee of Prudent Trust–82/23) i.e., the Petitioner/Financial Creditor is a public company limited by shares incorporated on 23.09.2011 under the Companies Act, 1956 bearing CIN: U74900DL2011PLC225445. The company is registered with the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and has its registered office at 611, Sixth Floor, D Mall, Plot No. A-1, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi–110034. The Financial Creditor is engaged in the business of acquisition and reconstruction of financial assets.
Prudent ARC Limited acquired the debt of the Corporate Debtor from DBS Bank India Limited pursuant to an Assignment Agreement dated 28.04.2023. The present petition has been instituted through its authorised representative, Mr. Narendra Singh, having office at the aforesaid address.
Super Property Maintenance Private Limited i.e., the Corporate Debtor is a private company incorporated on 07.12.1997 under the Companies Act, 1956 bearing CIN: U45201DL1997PTC087131, having its registered office at Plot No. 1, Local Shopping Centre, Sharda Niketan, Pitampura, New Delhi–110034. As per the petition, the company has a nominal share capital of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- and a paid-up share capital of Rs. 5,50,00,000/-. The Corporate Debtor is engaged in the real estate/property maintenance sector and had availed various credit facilities from Lakshmi Vilas Bank, including a term loan and overdraft facilities aggregating to Rs. 21.91 crore. The account was classified as NPA on 24.04.2018.
The CIRP is sought to be commenced through the initiation of present proceedings, on account of default in repayment of the financial debt.
The Petition arises out of financial facilities originally granted by Lakshmi Vilas Bank, which subsequently stood vested in DBS Bank India Limited pursuant to the Scheme of Amalgamation notified by the Government of India and thereafter assigned to the Financial Creditor vide Assignment Agreement dated 28.04.2023.
The present proceedings have been instituted pursuant to the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Company Application No. 405 of 2025, whereby Company Petition No. 400 of 2012 pending before the High Court was transferred to this Tribunal for consideration under the framework of the Code.
Submissions by the Applicant:
In the year 2016, the Corporate Debtor approached Lakshmi Vilas Bank seeking financing facilities. In view of the said request, Lakshmi Vilas Bank on 23.12.2016 sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Crore only), at the rate of 12% per annum. On the same date, the Corporate Debtor executed a Demand Promissory Note and a Term Loan Agreement, as well as a General Power of Attorney in favour of Lakshmi Vilas Bank. The said facility was secured by way of Personal Guarantees extended by Mr. Amit Gupta and Mrs. Uma Gupta, and Corporate Guarantees by Reis Developers Private Limited, Shagun Developers Private Limited and Aerens Goldsouk International Limited.
Subsequently, in 2017, the Corporate Debtor again approached Lakshmi Vilas Bank seeking a Temporary Overdraft Limit of Rs. 26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs), which was sanctioned on 22.11.2017. The Corporate Debtor executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 22.11.2017 in favour of Lakshmi Vilas Bank.
On 26.03.2018, Lakshmi Vilas Bank further sanctioned an amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Lakhs), in the form of Temporary Overdraft Limit. The Corporate Debtor also executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 26.03.2018. The total debt sanctioned thus aggregated to Rs. 21,91,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Crores Ninety-One Lakhs) after adjusting the part payments done by the Corporate Debtor.
However, due to the repeated defaults in repayment of the facilities on the part of the Corporate Debtor, the account of the Corporate Debtor was categorized as a Non-Performing Asset (“NPA”) on 24.04.2018 in terms of the guidelines and circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
In the meantime, a Company Petition bearing No. 400 of 2012 filed before the High Court of Delhi seeking winding up of the Corporate Debtor, was admitted vide order dated 06.05.2019 and the High Court appointed a Liquidator and directed him to take over all assets and bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor.
On 30.05.2018, the erstwhile Financial Creditor issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and subsequently on 22.09.2022, issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. Despite the said notices, the Corporate Debtor failed to make any repayment.
Subsequently, Lakshmi Vilas Bank (pursued further by DBS Bank India Limited) moved before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-II in Original Application No. 173 of 2019, seeking recovery of the default amount, which is still pending.
Vide gazette notification dated 25.11.2020, the Government of India sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation of Lakshmi Vilas bank Limited with DBS Bank Limited, which came into force on 21.11.2020.
On 28.04.2023, DBS Bank India Limited executed an Assignment Agreement in favor of Prudent ARC Limited (Prudent Trust-82/23) assigning all its debt, rights, title and interest against the Corporate Debtor and its Guarantors.
Subsequently, the Financial Creditor moved Company Application No. 405 of 2025 under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking transfer of Company Petition No. 400 of 2012 to the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench. The said Application was allowed by the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 18.08.2025. The operative part of the said Order dated 18.08.2025 reads as under: -
An amount of Rs. 30,56,58,396.37/- (Rupees Thirty Crores Fifty-Six Lakhs Fifty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety-Six only) as on 31.03.2026 is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor.
This petition was listed for hearing on 05.05.2026, wherein the following order was passed by this Adjudicating Authority:
Respondent/CD has chosen not to make appearance despite service of notice. On 02.06.2026, the orders were reserved in the instant matter for adjudication on commencement of CIRP qua the Corporate Debtor.
Analysis and Findings
The issue concerning maintainability of a petition under Section 7 of the Code during the pendency of a winding up petition before the High Court even after admission and appointment of Official Liquidator, is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Forech India Ltd. v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2019) 18 SCC 549, has clarified the aforesaid position by approving the views of Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Parekh Aluminex Limited, (2017) 4 Bom. CR 653, in the following paras:
Further, the Supreme Court in Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 641, while interpreting Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Transfer Rules, held that even after admission of a winding-up petition, the Company Court retains discretion to transfer the proceedings to the NCLT so that insolvency resolution under the IBC may be undertaken. The Supreme Court observed that the IBC is a beneficial legislation intended to prioritize revival and resolution over liquidation and that transfer of winding-up proceedings would advance the objectives of the Code. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgement is set out below:
It is patent from the aforesaid judgments that the Code would prevail, and the Official Liquidator would answer all the queries of the Resolution Professional who is to take over the process. Further, the judgment lays down the law clearly with regard to the question of the transfer of proceedings arising at the post-admission stage before the High Court. If the proceedings at the post-admission stage have achieved progress, inasmuch as it may not be possible to reverse the same, the proceedings are not amenable to transfer. If, post-admission, no significant steps have been taken in the winding-up proceedings, the proceedings may be transferred to the Adjudicating Authority for dealing with under the Code.
Further, the High Court, in the order dated 18.08.2025, has categorically recorded that in the winding up proceedings, no auction or sale of assets has been undertaken yet; there is no impediment to the transfer of these proceedings. Further, the order records confirmation from the official liquidator that no attachment orders have been issued by the office of the Official Liquidator in respect of any property, immovable or otherwise, and thus, in principle, no irreversible steps have been taken towards winding up of the Company; however, a claim for liquidation expenses exists. It has further been recorded that the Official Liquidator has no objection to the transfer.
Therefore, it is for that reason that this Tribunal is satisfied that the transferred proceedings can validly be considered under Section 7 of the Code and that initiation of CIRP is not barred.
Further, there is no representation on behalf of the CD in the instant proceedings, neither by ex-directors nor by the official liquidator. It may be mentioned that the promoters / ex-directors have not been appearing even before the proceedings of winding up before Delhi High Court, as evident from order passed by Delhi High Court on 23.08.2024, which is extracted hereinafter:
Even otherwise, since the CD had been subjected to Winding-Up proceedings since 06.05.2019, it was being represented by the Official Liquidator, who has rendered no objection to the transfer and continuation of insolvency resolution process under the IBC, as recorded in the order dated 18.08.2025 of Delhi High Court. Therefore, non-representation on behalf of the CD in the instant proceedings under section 7 is not adversary and poses no legal impediment in the commencement of CIRP, more so in light of the fact that CD was already admitted to winding up since 2019, however, no steps could be taken to liquidate the assets of the CD.
We may now examine the provisions of Section 7 (2) and Section 7 (5) of the Code which read as under:
“7. Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor.
7 (1) ………..
7 (2) The financial creditor shall make an application under sub-section (1) in such form and manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed.
7 (3) ……….
7 (4) ……….
7 (5) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that-
(a)A default has occurred and the application under sub-section (2) is complete, and there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may, by order, admit such application; or
(b)……………”
A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provision would show that the form and manner of the application have to be as prescribed. It is evident from the record that the application has been filed on the proforma prescribed under Rule 4 (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with Section 7 of the Code. We are satisfied that a default has occurred in excess of the threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the Code. The Financial Creditor has placed on record the sanction letters, loan documents, promissory notes, assignment agreement, statement of account and Information Utility records. The material on record establishes the existence of a financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Code. The account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA on 24.04.2018 and default stands established from the documentary evidence placed on record. The outstanding amount of Rs. 30,56,58,396.37/- is far in excess of the threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the Code.
The application under sub section 2 of Section 7 is complete; no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the proposed Interim Resolution Professional and there exists no legal impediment to admit the present petition.
Accordingly, we order,
Having regard to the conspectus of the present case (as discussed above) we are inclined to ADMIT the present petition bearing No. CP (IB) 218(ND)/2026 under Section 7 of IBC, 2016. Accordingly, the petition bearing No. (IB)-218(ND)/2026 filed by Petitioner under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 for initiating CIRP against Corporate Debtor, i.e. Super Property Maintenance Pvt. Ltd. is hereby ADMITTED. This Adjudicating Authority therefore orders the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process qua the Corporate Debtor (Super Property Maintenance Pvt. Ltd.), which shall ordinarily be completed within the timelines stipulated in the Code, 2016 (as amended), reckoning from the date on which this order is passed.
As a consequence, thereof, the petition being admitted in terms of Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, the moratorium as envisaged under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016 shall follow in relation of the Corporate Debtor as per clauses (a) to (d). However, during the pendency of the moratorium period, terms of Section 14(2) to Section 14 (3) of the IBC, 2016 shall come into force. The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or until this Adjudicating Authority approves the Resolution Plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or as the case may be. Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 shall come into effect from the date of this order;
The Financial Creditor has proposed the name of Value Plus Insolvency Resolution Professionals Limited, having registration no. IBBI/IPE-0102/IPA-2/2024-25/50089 as the IRP. The proposed IRP has submitted its written communication in Form-2, as required under Rule 9(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, with a copy of the registration annexed. A copy of the written consent has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the Application. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority appoints CS Vekas Kumar Garg, acting on behalf of Value Plus Insolvency Resolution Professionals Limited as the Interim Resolution Professional for the Corporate Debtor. The details of the IRP are as under: Name: CS Vikas Kumar Garg acting on behalf of Value Plus Insolvency Resolution Professionals Limited Registration No.- IBBI/IPE-0102/IPA-2/2024-25/50089 Email ID: [email protected] Address: 1B, 1/17, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110032.
In pursuance of Section 13 (2) of the IBC, 2016, we direct the IRP to make a public announcement immediately with regard to the admission of this application under Section 7 of the Code. The expression immediately means within three days, as clarified by the Explanation to Regulation 6(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
During the CIRP period, the management of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the IRP/RP, in terms of Section 17 of the IBC. The officers and managers of the Corporate Debtor shall provide all documents in their possession and furnish every information in their knowledge to the IRP within one week from the date of receipt of this Order, in default of which coercive steps will follow. There shall be no further opportunity given in this regard.
The IRP is expected to take full charge of the Corporate Debtor’s assets, and documents without any delay whatsoever. He is also free to take police assistance, and this Court hereby directs the Police Authorities to render all assistance as may be required by the IRP in this regard.
The IRP or the RP, as the case may be shall submit to this Adjudicating Authority periodical report with regard to the progress of the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor and the action taken in compliance of Section 17, 18, 20, 25 of the Code and Regulation 3A & 4 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016.
The FC shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Only) with the IRP to meet the expenses arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims. These expenses are subject to the approval of the Committee of Creditor (CoC). This amount shall be adjusted towards the fees and expenses payable to the IRP/RP.
The Registry is hereby directed to communicate a copy of the order to the FC, the Corporate Debtor, the IRP and the Registrar of Companies, NCR, New Delhi, by Speed Post and by email, at the earliest but not later than seven days from today, and upload the same on website immediately after pronouncement of the order. The Registrar of Companies shall update its website by updating the status of the Corporate Debtor, and specific mention regarding admission of this petition must be notified.
The registry is further directed to send a copy of the order to the IBBI also for their record.
A certified copy of the order may be issued to all the concerned parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities. IRP to report compliance within four weeks.