Shiv Om Sharma & Ors. vs Amar Jyoti Universe Nidhi Ltd.

This Application has been filed on 16.05.2025 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(hereinafter referred as the "IBC/Code"), by (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants/Financial Creditor") seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred as "CIRP") against M/s Amar Jyoti Universe Nidhi Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent/Corporate Debtor').

In Part I of the Application, it is averred that Applicants are 52 individuals who have jointly filed the present application.

Part II of the application contains the details of the Corporate Debtor, and it is averred that the Corporate Debtor was incorporated on 01.12.2016. The Registered office of the Corporate Debtor is at Jalandhari Sarai, Budaun UP 243601. 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 has proposed Mr Kanahiya Lal Goyal having IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-02667/2021-2022/14053, to act as the Interim Resolution Professional.

In Part-IV of the Application, the applicants stated that the amount in default is Rs. 1,25,91,300/-. The date of default is stated to range from 16.09.2024 to 05.05.2025 and is further averred to be continuing.

In Part V of the application, the Applicants have relied upon a copy of the Deposit Certificates to substantiate the debt allegedly disbursed to the Corporate Debtor.

It is submitted that the Applicants had individually invested various amounts with the Corporate Debtor during the period from 02.04.2022 to 16.09.2022, in respect of which deposit confirmation certificates were issued. It was submitted that the deposits were to mature and become repayable after a period of two years.

However, upon maturity, the Corporate Debtor failed to refund the amounts due. Consequently, the Applicants issued demand notices between 01.05.2025 and 05.05.2025 calling upon the Corporate Debtor to discharge the outstanding dues within a period of seven days. It was submitted that despite the expiry of the stipulated period, no payment was received by the Applicants. Thereafter, certain Applicants also addressed reminder emails to the Corporate Debtor, to which the Corporate Debtor replied acknowledging the default and stating that the repayment was being delayed on account of the financial crisis being faced by the company.

In view of the continued failure of the Corporate Debtor to repay the matured deposits despite repeated demands and its acknowledgment of the default, the Applicants believe that the Corporate Debtor has no means or resources to discharge its financial obligations and has become insolvent. Accordingly, having failed to recover the amounts due, the Applicants were constrained to file the present Application before this Tribunal.

The Corporate Debtor, in its reply dated 06.10.2025, contested the submissions of the Applicants and, at the outset, contended that the present Company Petition is not maintainable, as the amounts claimed by the Applicants were in the nature of investments and, therefore, do not fall within the ambit of a financial debt so as to confer upon the Applicants the status of Financial Creditors under the Code. It was further submitted that the present petition has been filed by a group of individuals only with a view to meet the threshold requirement prescribed under Section 7 of the Code, which is impermissible in law and renders the petition not maintainable.

It was further submitted that the Deposit Confirmation Certificates contain a stipulation that, in the event the deposited amount is not claimed upon maturity, the deposits would stand automatically renewed for the same tenure at the prevailing rate of interest. The Corporate Debtor further contended that certain Applicants, without first claiming the maturity amount in accordance with the terms of the Deposit Confirmation Certificates, directly approached this Tribunal, which is arbitrary, perverse and not maintainable. It was also submitted that the demand notices issued by the Applicants calling upon the Corporate Debtor to repay the maturity amounts within a period of 15 days are arbitrary, perverse and bad in law, as the said notices are not stated to have been issued under any provision of law.

It was also submitted that the present insolvency petition is barred by limitation, as the demand notices were issued by the Applicants only in the year 2025, which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Corporate Debtor further contended that the Applicants have not complied with the requirement of the time value of money and, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

The Applicants, also filed a rejoinder dated 16.10.2025, denying the contentions raised by the Corporate Debtor. At the outset, it was submitted that the objection regarding the maintainability of the present Application is misconceived, as Section 7 of the Code permits the Applicants to jointly file an application against the Corporate Debtor for enforcement of their claims.

It was further submitted that the amounts deposited by the Applicants with Amar Jyoti Universe Nidhi Ltd., being the Corporate Debtor, constitute financial debt and, therefore, the Applicants are duly covered within the ambit of Financial Creditors under the provisions of the Code. The Applicants further denied the contention that they had not claimed the maturity amount and submitted that they had approached the office of the Corporate Debtor seeking repayment of their matured deposits. However, the Corporate Debtor merely requested the Applicants to await payment on the ground that the company was facing financial difficulties and assured them that the outstanding amounts would be repaid.

The Applicants further denied the plea of limitation raised by the Corporate Debtor and submitted that the present Application has been filed well within the prescribed period of limitation. It was submitted that the demand notices were issued after the maturity of the deposits and that the present Application has been filed within three years from the respective dates of maturity.

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 deposits made by the Applicants matured on different dates and, upon the failure of the Corporate Debtor to repay the matured amounts, the respective dates of default fall between 16.09.2024 and 05.05.2025. The record further reveals that the Applicants issued demand notices between 01.05.2025 and 05.05.2025, calling upon the Corporate Debtor to discharge its liability, and thereafter instituted the present Application on 16.05.2025. Thus, the cause of action having arisen upon the Corporate Debtor's failure to repay the matured deposits, the present Application has been instituted well within the prescribed period of limitation of three years. We, therefore, find no merit in the objection raised by the Corporate Debtor on the ground of 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 various individual Applicants who had deposited different amounts with the Corporate Debtor under Fixed Deposit Confirmation Certificates. A perusal of the Fixed Deposit Confirmation Certificates, annexed as Annexure-4 to the present Application, reveals that each deposit was accepted by the Corporate Debtor for a fixed tenure of 24 months, carrying interest at the rate of 7% per annum, to remain till the notice demand, as per the conditions overleaf. The said certificates record the particulars of the depositor, the policy number, the date of deposit and the date of maturity. The details of the respective Applicants, the amounts deposited by them and the corresponding maturity amounts payable are reproduced below for ready reference:

As per the terms of the Fixed Deposit Confirmation Certificates, the deposits matured upon completion of the stipulated tenure of 24 months and consequently became payable to the respective Applicants. Subsequently, the said amounts were not repaid on their respective due dates, resulting the Applicants in issuance of demand notices calling upon the Corporate Debtor to discharge its liability. Significantly, in its replies to the demand notices, copies whereof are annexed at pages 67, 73 and 93 of the present Application, the Corporate Debtor did not dispute either the deposits or its liability thereunder; rather, it acknowledged that the Company was undergoing financial hardship and sought further time to repay the outstanding amounts.

The aforesaid position also stands reaffirmed by the submission made by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporate Debtor during the hearing held on 01.07.2026, wherein it was submitted that "due to the financial crisis being faced by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor, it is not in a position to repay the deposits."

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we observe that the amounts disbursed by the Applicants were against consideration for the time value of money, carrying interest at the rate of 7% per annum, and are, therefore, covered within the ambit of a 'financial debt' as defined under Section 5(8) of the Code. The deposits having admittedly matured and remained unpaid despite demand, coupled with the acknowledgment of liability by the Corporate Debtor in its replies to the demand notices and the submissions made before us, clearly establishes the occurrence of default of financial debt. The Corporate Debtor has neither disputed the receipt of the deposits nor its obligation to repay the matured amounts. Rather, its consistent stand has been that repayment could not be made on account of the financial difficulties being faced by it. Such explanation, however, cannot absolve the Corporate Debtor of its contractual obligation to repay the matured deposits.

Considering the remaining objections raised by the Corporate Debtor, we are of the considered opinion that the contention raised of deposits being in the nature of investments and, therefore, do not constitute a financial debt cannot be accepted since the Fixed Deposit Confirmation Certificates placed on record clearly establish that the deposits were accepted by the Corporate Debtor for a fixed tenure carrying a stipulated rate of interest and were repayable upon maturity. Equally untenable is the contention raised on behalf of the Corporate Debtor that the allegedly deposited amount due stood automatically renewed in terms of the conditions contained in the certificates; therefore, the said allegedly deposited amount was not due to be repaid, and consequently, no default has occurred. The material on record demonstrates that the Applicants had demanded repayment of the matured amounts by issuing demand notices, to which the Corporate Debtor responded by acknowledging its inability to repay on account of financial constraints and sought further time. The plea of automatic renewal, therefore, cannot come to the aid of the Corporate Debtor.

We also find no merit in the objection regarding the maintainability of the present Application on the ground that it has been jointly filed by several Applicants only to satisfy the threshold prescribed under the Code. Section 7 of the Code, permits Financial Creditors, either individually or jointly, to initiate proceedings against the Corporate Debtor. As is evident from the particulars of the defaulted debt, tabulated herein at Para 18, each Applicant has asserted an independent claim arising out of the deposits made with the Corporate Debtor and the aggregate amount in default exceeds the threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the Code. Consequently, the present application cannot be held to be non-maintainable on this ground.

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. 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 Amar Jyoti Universe 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 his Authorisation for Assignment ("AFA") was valid only up to 30.06.2025. Accordingly, vide order dated 13.07.2026, the Applicants were directed to furnish the valid AFA of the proposed IRP or, in the event that the proposed IRP did not hold a valid AFA, 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 14.07.2026 proposing the name of Ms. Veenu Drall, Insolvency Professional, having IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-02504/2021-2022/13816; Email ID: [email protected] to act as the IRP, who has also filed her consent in Form – 2. The Law Research Associate of this Tribunal, Ms. Kriti Kaushal, has checked the credentials of Ms. Veenu Drall, and found that there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed Insolvency Professional and also there is nothing adverse against her. Upon verification from the website of IBBI, it is found that Insolvency Professional holds valid authorization till 31.12.2026. After considering these details, we appoint Ms. Veenu Drall having registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-02504/2021-2022/13816 as IRP.

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

Moratorium under Section 14 of the Code has commenced from the date of this order prohibiting the following:

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.

The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of the corporate debtor under Section 33 as the case may be.

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. 67/ALD/2025 stands admitted for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor i.e., Amar Jyoti Universe Nidhi Limited.

List the matter on 25.08.2026 for filing of the progress report/further proceeding.