Union Bank Of India vs Indo Pacific Projects Limited

C.P. (IB) No.150/MB/2026 (Application) was filed on 13.02.2026 by Union Bank Of India the Financial Creditor (FC), having PAN No. AACU0564G 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 Indo Pacific Projects Limited the Corporate Debtor having CIN No. L74140MH1982PLC026882

This Application has been affirmed by one Mr. Rohit Pradeep Gulkari, authorised signatory of the Applicant vide letter dated 31.01.2026.

As per Part IV of the Application, the amount claimed to be in default is Rs.13,96,88,639.09/- (Rupees Thirteen Crore Ninety-Six Lakhs Eighty-Eight Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Nine and Nine paisa only)

The date of default is stated as 02.04.2018.

The Applicant has proposed the name of Ms. Megha Agarwal, an Insolvency Professional , having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-01456/2018-2019/12272, 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.

It is stated that the Corporate Debtor approached the Financial Creditor for a Term Loan facility aggregating to Rs. 26.30 Crores, comprising of Rs.19.87 Crores (Non-CRE) and Rs.6.43 Crores (CRE).

The Financial Creditor sanctioned the said facility vide Sanction Letter dated 15.09.2012 for a tenure of 84 months. The loan was secured by an equitable mortgage over immovable property situated at Plot No. 197, Mouza-Hiwari, Middle Ring Road, Wardhaman-Nagar, Nagpur, admeasuring 11,211.54 sq. meters along with a constructed building admeasuring 9,508.237 sq. meters. The Directors of the Corporate Debtor deposited title deeds and furnished personal guarantees. In furtherance thereof, the parties executed a General Term Loan Agreement, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, General Power of Attorney, and other security documents.

A charge bearing Charge ID No. 10382239 securing Rs. 26.30 Crores was duly created and registered with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai.

The Corporate Debtor, in its audited financial statements for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015- 16, expressly acknowledged the debt due to the Financial Creditor.

The Corporate Debtor committed continuous defaults in repayment from 02.04.2018 onwards. Consequently, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.06.2018.It is noticed that as per NPA certificate attached on page No. 91 of the Application the date of NPA is 29.06.2018

The Financial Creditor issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 on 16.07.2018 demanding payment of Rs. 7,81,92,279.19/-, followed by issuance of a Possession Notice dated 19.06.2019.

The Financial Creditor also filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 before the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai, against the Corporate Debtor and its personal guarantors for recovery of outstanding dues.

The Corporate Debtor sought restructuring and submitted multiple One-Time Settlement (0TS) proposals offering approximately 50% of the alleged outstanding dues, disputing the quantum of liability. All such proposals were rejected by the Financial Creditor as being inconsistent with the Bank's recovery policy. Despite repeated opportunities, the Corporate Debtor failed to regularize the account.

Proceedings were also initiated against the personal guarantors, including issuance of a Demand Notice under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019. Objections raised were duly considered and rejected, and the Corporate Debtor continued to remain in default.

A possession letter dated 13.10.2023 was issued to the Corporate Debtor and the personal guarantors. Despite pendency of proceedings before the DRT and SARFAESI actions, no payment was made.

The Corporate Debtor later vide Letter dated 13.02.2025 submitted an 0TS proposal for Rs. 4 Crores.

As on 31.12.2025, the total outstanding dues payable by the Corporate Debtor amount to Rs. 13,96,88,639.09/- comprising of principal amount of Rs. 7,51,69,269.19/- and interest amounting to Rs. 6,57,19,900.70/.

Further, vide additional affidavit dated 27.03.2026 it is stated that the initial period of limitation of three years would have ordinarily expired on or about 01.04.2021. However, the Corporate Debtor has, from time to time, acknowledged its liability by submitting One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposals and through written communications to the Financial Creditor, thereby extending the period of limitation in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

It is also stated that the acknowledgement made by the Corporate Debtor vide OTS proposals and communications dated 21.11.2020, 28.09.2021, 14.10.2021, 25.10.2021 and 13.02.2025, along with part payment, constitute valid acknowledgement under Limitation Act, 1963.

It is further submitted that even though the Corporate Debtor, in certain communications, disputed the quantum of liability, it has consistently admitted the existence of debt and expressed willingness to settle the same, which constitutes a valid acknowledgement in law.

Since the acknowledgement dated 25.10.2021 falls within the excluded period, the limitation effectively recommenced from 01.03.2022, extending the limitation period up to 01.03.2025. The subsequent OTS proposal dated 13.02.2025, along with part payment, was made within the subsisting limitation period, thereby giving rise to a fresh period of limitation of three years commencing from 28.02.2025.

Further it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020), by order dated 10.01.2022, directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of computing period of limitation under any general or special laws. Consequently, the balance period of limitation as on 01.04.2021, if any, shall become available from 01.03 2022. This judgment applies to the present case and supports the computation of limitation from 01.03 2022 after exclusion of the COVID-19 period.

Further the NeSL Form D i.e. the Record of Default states the Status of Authentication of Default as “AUTHENTICATED”. Further the Date of Default as stated in the NeSL Record of Default is 02.04.2018.

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

aa) The Written Consent from IRP in Form 2.

bb) Working of calculation of Outstanding Debt.

At the hearing held on 18.03.2026, Mr. Radhe Agarwal appeared on behalf of the Respondent and waived issuance of notice. He requested ten (10) days' time to file a Reply following receipt of the Additional Affidavit from the Applicant, while confirming that a copy of the Application had already been served upon the Respondent. At the request of the Ld. Counsel, ten (10) days' time was granted to file the Reply.

Subsequently, during the hearing held on 20.04.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal noted that no Reply was available on record, and the Applicant confirmed that no Reply had been served upon them. In the interest of justice, a final opportunity was granted to the Respondent to file its Reply within an extended period of seven (7) days.

At the hearing held on 08.06.2026, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent requested a further grant of three (3) days' time to file the Reply and voluntarily offered to deposit cost of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) into the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) within three (3) days. Subject to the deposit of the said amount, the Respondent was granted an extension of three (3) days to file its Reply, with the explicit condition that no further extensions would be entertained. The Applicant was directed to file a rejoinder within 7 days from the date of receipt of reply. Further the Corporate Debtor and Applicant were directed to file Written Submissions within a period of 3 days thereafter.

During the hearing held on 29.06.2026, it was observed that a Reply had been e-filed on 11.06.2026; however, it was marked as "under defects" on the DMS. Furthermore, no representative appeared on behalf of the Respondent, leaving it unverified whether the direction to deposit costs had been complied with. The Respondent had also failed to file its Written Submissions. Consequently, the Respondent was directed once again to file its Written Submissions within seven (7) days and to ensure appearance on the next date of hearing, failing which appropriate orders would be passed.

During the course of the hearing held on 07.07.2026, it was observed that the Respondent had neither filed its Written Submissions nor cured the defects in the Reply e-filed on 11.06.2026. Furthermore, no proof concerning the deposition of costs, as previously directed, was brought on record. It was also noted that none appeared on behalf of the Respondent at the said hearing . In view of the persistent non-compliance and continued disobedience of the orders of this Tribunal, the Reply filed by the Respondent was disregarded.

The Affidavit in rejoinder dated 20.06.2026 was filed by one Rohit Pradeep Gulkari stated to be the Authorised Representative of the Applicant.

It was observed that the Applicant had denied the contentions raised by the Corporate Debtor. However, since the Reply filed by the Corporate Debtor was already disregarded vide Order dated 07.07.2026, the Rejoinder was not taken into consideration by this Tribunal.

The Financial Creditor has relied on the following judgements delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India :-

a. Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India

b. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal

c. Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivakumar Reddy

d. B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates,

e. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank

f. Swiss Ribbons v. Union of India

We have considered the pleadings in the matter and have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties.

On perusal of the documents it is observed that the Applicant sanctioned a term loan of Rs.19.87 Crore in Non CRE Facility and an amount of Rs.6.43 crore in CRE facility aggregating to a total amount of Rs. 26.30 Crore to the Corporate Debtor, which was to be repaid in 84 months equated monthly instalments vide sanction letter dated 15.09.2012. Both parties executed the Loan Agreement on 17.09.2012.

The facility was secured vide memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 17.09.2012 for the property situated at Plot no. 197 Wardhaman Nagar, old Bagadganj, Nagpur.

As per the Statement of Accounts, it is observed that the loan amount came to be disbursed on 17.09.2012 and 27.09.2012 . The Applicant has also attached Certificate under Bankers Books Evidence Act 1891 which supports the disbursements.

The Applicant has placed on record NPA certificate which states that account of the Corporate Debtor was declared as Non-Performing Asset on 29.06.2018. Thereafter the Applicant issued a demand Notice dated 16.07.2018 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002, however the Corporate Debtor has not paid the outstanding till date.

Furthermore, a bare perusal of Explanation II to the amended Section 7 sub section (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 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 debt and 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 reflects the status of authentication of default as 'AUTHENTICATED.' Section 7 of the Code, as amended, is reproduced hereunder:"

As per the scheme of the Code, at the time of admission, this Tribunal shall consider whether the debt is due and payable and whether the same is under default or not. Hence in our considered view the Financial Creditor has placed enough evidence and documents including copy of the sanction letter, Copies of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, Letter of Guarantee, General Hypothecation Agreement, Statement of Account along with Certificate under Bankers Books Evidence Act 1891 and more particularly Record of Default issued by NeSL, which demonstrates the amount in default to be Rs.10.30 Crore Rupees and the Status of Authentication of Default as “AUTHENTICATED” thus satisfying the requirement of Explanation -II to Section 7 sub section 5 of the Code to show that a financial debt is due which is way above the threshold of One Crore Rupees, which is payable to the Financial Creditor and the same is defaulted by the Corporate Debtor.

It is observed that the original date of default is 02.04.2018. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor issued One Time Settlement (OTS) letter dated 21.11.2020 which extended the limitation till 21.11.2023. Further, again vide OTS letter dated 14.10.2021, the limitation was again extended till 13.10.2024.Furthermore, in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 stands excluded for the purpose of computing limitation. As the period of limitation was subsisting as on 15.03.2020, the Financial Creditor is entitled to the benefit of the said exclusion.

It is further evident from the record that prior to the expiry of the extended period of limitation, the Corporate Debtor submitted a fresh OTS proposal dated 13.02.2025, seeking settlement of its outstanding dues. The said OTS proposal contains an unequivocal acknowledgment of the subsisting liability of the Corporate Debtor, thereby constituting a valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, a fresh period of limitation commenced with effect from 13.02.2025, remaining available up to 13.02.2028. Therefore, the present Company Petition, having been filed on 13.02.2026 , is well within the period of limitation. This Computation in regard to limitation period is as given below:

In regard to the above computation of limitation, this Tribunal has relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble NCLAT in Dinesh G Jaiswal vs. Punjab National Bank, Asset Recovery Branch and Anr. (2022) ibclaw.in 802 NCLAT Wherein it has been held that OTS and financial account statements constitute valid acknowledgment of debt and extends limitation period. The relevant abstract of the judgement is reproduced below: -

This Tribunal has also relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 while examining the validity of the admission of the Corporate Debtor to CIRP, has laid down as under :-

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 , 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 , and continuing nature of such default supported by clear documentary evidence.

Financial Creditor has also proposed the name of an Insolvency Professional (IP) i.e. Ms. Megha Agarwal, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-01456/2018-2019/12272 and Authorization for Assignment (AFA) which is valid up to 30.06.2027 as per IBBI portal, as the proposed IRP and as per the Form 2 attached along with the Application , no disciplinary proceedings are going on against the said IP. 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) 150/MB/2026 filed under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, by Union Bank of India, the Applicant (FC) ,for initiating CIRP in respect of Indo Pacific Projects 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, Ms. Megha Agarwal , having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-01456/2018-2019/12272 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 Maharashtra, 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.