Punjab National Bank vs T V Vision Limited

C.P. (IB) No. 143/MB/2026 was filed on 12.02.2026 by PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (hereinafter referred to as “Financial Creditor”) having Pan No. AAACP0165G under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) in respect of M/s. T V VISION LIMITED, the Corporate Debtor having CIN No. U64200MH2007PLC172707 for the alleged default in repayment of financial debt of Rs. 294,65,82,103.48/-.

This Application has been affirmed by one Ms. Winne Grover, authorised signatory of the Applicant, vide letter dated 23.01.2026.

As per Part IV of the Application, the amount claimed to be in default is Rs. 294,65,82,103.48/-. (Two Hundred Ninety Four Crore Sixty Five Lakh Eighty two thousand One Hundred Three Rupees and Fourty Eight Paisa only) (as amended vide additional affidavit dated 20.06.2026.)

The date of default is stated as 31.03.2018.

The Applicant has proposed the name of Mr. Alok Kumar Murarka, an Insolvency Professional, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-01934/2019-2020/13006, to act as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) (having valid Authorisation for Assignment up to 30.06.2027) (as per IBBI site), in case the Application is admitted. (The Applicant has proposed the name of IRP vide additional affidavit dated 21.05.2026)

The Corporate Debtor is one of the group companies of SAB Group, engaged in T V channel broadcasting (media and entertainment) and had approached the Financial Creditor in the year 2016 seeking a Term Loan limit of Rs.100.00 Crore. Pursuant to this request, an initial sanction of Rs.50.00 Crore was approved by the Financial Creditor vide Sanction Letter dated 04.05.2016. For securing the sanctioned limit, various loan and security documents were executed on 17.05.2016 by the Corporate Debtor and its Guarantors in favour of the Financial Creditor.

Subsequently, an additional Term Loan Limit of Rs.50.00 Crore was sanctioned by the Financial Creditor vide Sanction Letter dated 14.07.2016, thereby sanctioning the total Term Loan Limit to Rs.100.00 Crore. For securing the sanctioned additional limit, various loan and security documents were executed on 18.07.2016 by the Corporate Debtor and its Guarantors in favour of the Financial Creditor.

The account of the Corporate Debtor defaulted and was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.03.2018 as per the Reserve Bank of India’s guidelines. The Financial Creditor issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Corporate Debtor, its directors, and guarantors on 22.06.2018.

The Corporate Debtor had submitted various OTS proposals, including a proposal dated 21.11.2020 for Rs.165 Crores against 8 group accounts of SAB Group, which had total dues of Rs.692.31 Crores as on 30.06.2020, one of which pertained to the Corporate Debtor. The said proposal was not acceptable to the Financial Creditor and was rejected. A copy of the OTS proposal dated 21.11.2020 is annexed as Exhibit “F” to the Application.

Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor submitted another OTS proposal dated 15.05.2021 for Rs.158 Crores in respect of the said 8 group accounts, which was not accepted by the Financial Creditor vide reply dated 08.11.2021, wherein the Financial Creditor advised improvement of the offer. Copies of the OTS proposal dated 15.05.2021 and the reply of the Financial Creditor dated 08.11.2021 are annexed as Exhibit “G Colly” to the Application.

Following a series of meetings and communications with the Financial | Creditor, the Corporate Debtor submitted another OTS proposal dated 30.07.2022 for Rs. 165.12 Crore covering 8 group accounts, including Rs. 113.96 Crore for the Corporate Debtor. The said proposal was partially accepted by the Financial Creditor only in respect of the Corporate Debtor’s account, vide OTS sanction letter dated 12.09.2022. Copies of the OTS proposal dated 30.07.2022 and OTS sanction letter dated 12.09.2022 are annexed as Exhibit “H Colly” to the Application.

Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor, vide reply dated 26.09.2022 to the sanction letter, stated that the said sanction letter would be accepted only if the Financial Creditor accepted the OTS proposal for all 8 group accounts. A copy of the reply dated 26.09.2022 to the sanction letter by the Corporate Debtor is annexed as Exhibit “I” to the Application.

Again, on 31.12.2022, the Corporate Debtor submitted another OTS proposal for 8 group accounts amounting to Rs. 166.16 Crore, including Rs. 113.96 Crore for the Corporate Debtor. The Financial Creditor, vide reply dated 22.06.2023, dropped the proposal and requested substantial improvement. Copies of the OTS proposal dated 31.12.2022 and the reply of the Financial Creditor dated 22.06.2023 are annexed as Exhibit “J” to the Application.

In subsequent meetings, the Financial Creditor again requested improvement of the OTS proposal, whereupon the Corporate Debtor submitted a revised OTS proposal dated 09.07.2025 for Rs. 167 Crore, payable within 12 months from the receipt of various regulatory approvals, while seeking release of all mortgaged immovable assets upon phased payment of Rs. 66.16 Crore and stating that the balance would be paid only after such release. The Financial Creditor, vide reply dated 07.11.2025, advised resubmission of the proposal along with latest Certified Net Means of all borrowers/guarantors and proportionate release of security against proportionate deposit of OTS amount. Copies of the OTS proposal dated 09.07.2025 and the reply of the Financial Creditor dated 07.11.2025 are annexed as Exhibit “K Colly” to the Application.

However, as no reply was received within 10 days, the Financial Creditor issued an OTS rejection letter dated 18.11.2025. a copy of the OTS rejection letter dated 18.11.2025 is annexed as Exhibit “L” to the Application.

The Corporate Debtor responded the same day vide email dated 18.11.2025, stating that it would submit a revised proposal after 27.11.2025, to which the Financial Creditor, vide email dated 19.11.2025, clarified that recovery actions would continue under bank guidelines though resubmission was not barred. The Corporate Debtor, vide email dated 22.11.2025, sought further time to submit revised proposal. The Financial Creditor, vide email dated 24.11.2025, rejected the request, stating that sufficient time had already been granted and, as no revised proposal was submitted, decided not to consider the OTS proposal at the proposed repayment terms, being a commercial decision. Thereafter, the Financial Creditor continued recovery actions in accordance with bank norms and legal guidelines. Copies of the emails dated 18.11.2025, 19.11.2025, 22.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 are annexed as Exhibit “M Colly” to the Application.

Further vide Additional Affidavit dated 20.03.2026 the Applicant stated that they have no objection to the appointment of an IRP by this tribunal other than the one who has been recommended by the Applicant.

The Applicant has further attached the following documents along with the Application; -

a. Copies of sanction letters dated 04.05.2016 and 14.07.2016.

b. Copy of Statement of Term Loan account No. 373100IC02101541.

c. Copy of Statement of Term Loan account No. 373100IC02101596.

d. Copy of OTS proposal dated 21.11.2020.

e. Copy of the OTS proposal dated 15.05.2021 and the reply of the Financial Creditor dated 08.11.2021.

f. Copies of the OTS proposal dated 30.07.2022 and OTS sanction letter dated 12.09.2022.

g. Copy of the reply dated 26.09.2022 to the sanction letter by the Corporate Debtor.

h. Copies of the OTS proposal dated 31.12.2022 and the reply of the Financial creditor dated 22.06.2023.

j. Copy of the OTS rejection letter dated 18.11.2025.

k. Copies of the emails dated 18.11.2025, 19.11.2025, 22.11.2025 and 24.11.2025.

l. Copy of the Record of default from NeSL.

m. Copy of the CBIL report summary of the Corporate Debtor.

n. Copy of IT Certificate.

o. Copy of Certificate under Section 2A(a) and 2A(b) Bankers Book Evidence Act.

p. Notice issued under Sec 13(2) the SARFAESI Act of 2002 to the debtor, directors of the company and guarantors of the company dated 22.06.2018.

q. Copy of the Term Loan Agreement dated 17.05.2016.

r. Copy of the Deed of Hypothecation dated 17.05.2016.

s. Copy of the Security Trustee Agreement dated 17.05.2016.

t. Copy of the Term Loan Agreement dated 18.07.2016.

The Corporate Debtor has filed affidavit dated 10.03.2026 affirmed by Mr. Hemant Patil, authorized Representative of the Corporate Debtor.

It is stated that with the introduction of OTT Platforms and Music Apps such as YouTube, the media sector and traditional Television Programme were slowed down as the subscribers had rapidly shifted to the said platforms, as a result of which the business of the Corporate Debtor had suffered financial difficulties.

Without Prejudice to its rights the Corporate Debtor admits that it had failed to timely repay their loans, and owing to the said failures, the accounts of the Corporate Debtor were declared NPA as on 31.03.2018. It is also a matter of record that the Petitioner had initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the said proceedings are pending adjudication.

In view of the above the Corporate Debtor has no objection to the admission of the present Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings, however, it strongly objects to the appointment of the proposed Resolution Professional i.e., Ms. Smita Gupta as the Interim Resolution Professional.

The captioned matter was placed for hearing on 10.03.2026, wherein it was recorded that the Corporate Debtor has no objection to the admission of the Company Petition. However, an objection was raised to the appointment of the proposed Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Pursuant to the order dated 10.03.2026, the Financial Creditor filed an additional affidavit dated 21.05.2026 expressing no objection to the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional by this Hon’ble Tribunal and the same was duly recorded in the daily order dated 01.04.2026. The copy of the order dated 01.04.2026 is annexed as Exhibit C to the additional affidavit.

The captioned matter was thereafter listed on 24.04.2026, wherein the aforesaid facts were recorded, and this petitioner undertook to file an additional affidavit proposing the name of another Insolvency Resolution Professional. The copy of the order dated 24.04.2026 is annexed as Exhibit D to the additional affidavit.

In compliance with the order dated 24.04.2026, the petitioner has proposed Mr. Alok Kumar Murarka as the Insolvency Resolution Professional in the present case. The details of the proposed Insolvency Resolution Professional as follows:

The Financial Creditor has also complied with the statutory requirements under Part III of Form 1 of the Application filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016. The copies of Form-2, Form-B (Authorization of Assignment), and the Certification Registration are annexed as exhibit E-Colly to the additional affidavit.

We have perused the documents as placed before us and have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant. Our findings in the matter are as under:-

The record establishes that the Financial Creditor had sanctioned two term loan facilities of Rs. 50 Crores each in May and July 2016 aggregating to Rs. 100 crores. Further the Corporate Debtor executed the requisite loan and security documents. The Applicant has attached the Bankers Books Evidence Act Certificate at annexure Q of the Application evidencing disbursement of the loan amount.

Due to financial irregularity and non-payment of the loan amount, the account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA on 31.03.2018, and thereafter a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 dated 22.06.2018 was issued to the Corporate Debtor demanding the outstanding amount to be paid within 60 days. However, the outstanding amount is not paid by the Corporate Debtor till date.

As per the scheme of the Code, at the time of admission this Tribunal is required to determine whether the debt exceeding threshold of Rs. One Crore as per Section 4 of IBC 2016 is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant and whether the same is under default or not. Hence in our considered view the Financial Creditor has placed enough evidence and documents including copies of Sanction Letter of the Loan, copies of Statement Account in respect of both the terms loans copies of Certificate under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, copies of Terms Loan Agreements, Hypothecation Agreements, copies of Acknowledgement of Debt by way of number of OTS proposal and other documents to show that a financial debt exceeds the threshold of Rs. One Crore which is due and payable and the same is defaulted by the Corporate Debtor.

Furthermore, a bare perusal of Explanation II to the amended Section 7 (5) of the Code reveals that where a financial institution produces a record of default registered with an Information Utility, such record shall be deemed sufficient for the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the existence of default. In the instant case, the Applicant—being a Scheduled Bank i.e. a financial institution within the meaning of Section 2(14)(a) of the Code—has produced the NeSL Form D, which demonstrates the amount of default as Rs. 46.40 crores and the status of authentication of default as “AUTHENTICATED”. Explanation II to the amended Section 7 (5) of the Code, as amended, is reproduced hereunder:

Further even the Corporate Debtor in its reply has stated that it has no objection to the admission of the present proceedings under Section 7 of the Code and had only objected to the appointment of the initially proposed Interim Resolution Professional i.e. Ms. Smita Gupta. However, the applicant thereafter proposed the name of new IRP i.e. Mr. Alok Kumar Murarka and the appointment of the same was not objected by the Corporate Debtor.

Now coming to the limitation aspect, it is observed that the date of default as mentioned in the part IV is 31.03.2018. Further the Applicant has placed on record OTS offer letters dated 21.11.2020, 15.05.2021, 30.07.2022, 31.12.2022 and latest being 09.07.2025, which are all within limitation, extending the limitation by further three years, which ends in 2028. Therefore, the present Application filed on 12.02.2026 is well within limitation as tabulated below:-

This Tribunal has relied on the judgement of Hon’ble NCLAT in Dinesh G Jaiswal vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr., [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 24/2021, date of order 22.09.2022], wherein it has been held that OTS proposal and financial account statements constitute valid acknowledgment of debt and extends limitation period. The relevant abstract of the judgement is produced below: -

Considering the facts of this matter and applying the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT in Dinesh G Jaiswal (Supra), we are of the view that the present Application filed on 12.02.2026 is well within the limitation period.

This Tribunal has further relied upon the judgment in the matter of Power Trust (Promoter of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.) v. Bhuvan Madan, IRP of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd. and Ors. Civil Appeal No(s). 2211/2024, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while examining the validity of the admission of the Corporate Debtor to CIRP, held that in a Section 7 Application the Adjudicating Authority has only to determine whether a default exceeding the threshold has taken place or not and based on the said determination, it has to either accept or reject the said Application. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder :-

(emphasis wherever required supplied)

To summarize the above judgment, we observe as under:-

a. The Code prescribes whenever a corporate debtor defaults on a debt that is due and payable, an insolvency process may be initiated. Section 3(12) defines “default” as non-payment of a debt which has become due and payable, and includes default in respect of a part or instalment thereof.

b. When the financial creditor initiates the insolvency process for the purposes of admission, the Adjudicating Authority is only to ascertain the existence of a default from the records of the information utility or the evidence furnished by the financial creditor within fourteen days from the receipt of such application. At this stage, neither is a corporate debtor entitled nor is the Adjudicating Authority required to examine any dispute regarding the existence of such debt. This Significantly reduces the scope of enquiry at the stage of a time-bound admission of an insolvency process by a financial creditor.

c. The adjudicating authority is empowered only to verify whether a default has occurred or if a default has not occurred. Based upon its decision, the adjudicating authority must then either admit or reject an application, respectively. These are the only two courses of action which are open to the adjudicating authority in accordance with Section 7(5).

d. The Adjudicating Authority is not required to go into the inability of a corporate debtor to pay its debt.

e. The Code restricts the scope of enquiry for admission of an insolvency process by a financial creditor merely to the existence of default of a debt due and payable and nothing more.

In view of the above discussion, the Applicant has successfully demonstrated the existence of a financial debt as the transaction involves money borrowed against the payment of interest under Section 5(8)(a) of IBC 2016, the occurrence of default, which is way above the threshold as stipulated under Section 4 of the Code (i.e. 1 Crore), and continuing nature of such default supported by clear documentary evidence. As such, in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Power Trust (Supra), we do not have any option but to admit the Application to initiate CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

The Financial Creditor has also proposed the name of an Insolvency Professional (IP) i.e. Mr. Alok Kumar Murarka, registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-01934/2019-2020/13006 and Authorization for Assignment (AFA) of the said IP is valid upto 30.06.2027 as per IBBI portal and as per the Form 2 attached along with the additional affidavit.

Further, this Application is complete as all the required documents have been attached along with the Application. Accordingly, the present Application is fit for admission under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016.

We make it clear that at this stage we have not crystallised the amount as claimed in this Application; the same is left to be collated by the IRP.

In view of the aforesaid findings, this Application bearing C.P. (IB)143/MB/2026 filed under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, by PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, the Applicants (FCs), for initiating CIRP in respect of T V VISION LIMITED, the Corporate Debtor, is Admitted.

We further declare a moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016 with consequential directions as mentioned below:

I. We prohibit:

II. That the supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period.

III. That the order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the CIRP or until this Tribunal approves the resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the IBC or passes an order for the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under Section 33 thereof, as the case may be.

IV. That the public announcement of the CIRP shall be made immediately as specified under Section 13 of the IBC read with Regulation 6 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and other Rules and Regulations made thereunder.

V. That this Bench hereby appoints, Mr. Alok Kumar Murarka, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-01934/2019-2020/13006 and e-mail address: [email protected] having valid Authorisation for Assignment up to 30.06.2027 (as per IBBI site) as the IRP to carry out the functions under the IBC.

VI. That the fee payable to IRP/RP shall be in accordance with such Regulations/Circulars/ Directions as may be issued by the IBBI.

VII. That during the CIRP Period, the management of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the IRP or, as the case may be, the RP in terms of Section 17 or Section 25, as the case may be, of the IBC. The officers and managers of the Corporate Debtor are directed to provide all assistance to the IRP as and when he takes charge of the assets and management of the Corporate Debtor. Coercive steps will follow against them under the provisions of the IBC read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules for any violation of law.

VIII. That the IRP/IP shall submit to this Tribunal monthly reports with regard to the progress of the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

IX. In exercise of the powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, the Financial Creditor is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakh Rupees) with the IRP to meet the initial CIRP cost arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims, etc. The amount so deposited shall be interim finance and paid back to the Financial Creditor on priority upon the funds becoming available with IRP/RP from the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The expenses incurred by IRP out of this fund are subject to approval by the CoC.

X. A copy of this Order be sent to the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai for updating the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor.

XI. The IRP is directed to issue notice of Admission upon all the statutory authorities of Corporate Debtor without Fail.

XII. A copy of the Order shall also be forwarded to the IBBI for record and dissemination on their website.

XIII. The Registry is directed to immediately communicate this Order to the Financial Creditor, the Corporate Debtor and the IRP by way of Speed Post, e-mail and WhatsApp.

XIV. Compliance report of the order by Designated Registrar is to be submitted today.