Ankush Saluja vs Urmila Goyal And Anr & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Ankush Saluja ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Urmila Goyal & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Mr. Zain A. Khan, Mr. Dev Aaryan and Mr. Mohd. Abran Khan, Advocates.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Raghav Demla, Advocates for R1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

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

for the Respondent.

2. 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:

PARTICULAR OF FINANCIAL DEBT

1 TOTAL The Total amount of debt granted to the Corporate Debtor is Rs.

. AMOUNT OF 3,75,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crores Seventy- Five Lakhs Only.)

DEBT The dates of disbursement of the loan amount are as follows:

GRANTED S. Date Cheque No./RTGS No. Bank Amount (In

DATE(S) OF No Branc Rs.)

DISBURSEME . h

NT 1. 20.02.20 HDFCR52016022074531 HDFC 20,00,000/-

16 306 , SDA

(RTGS)

2. 12.04.20 Cheque No. 61501 SBI, 75,00,000/-

16 PBB,

Hauz

Khas

Branc

h

3. 21.04.20 HDFCR20160421773112 HDFC 26,00,000/-

16 84 , SDA

(RTGS)

4. 22.04.20 Cheque No. 61504 SBI, 74,00,000/-

16 PBB,

Hauz

Khas

Branc

h

5. 28.04.20 Cheque No. 61505 SBI, 1,30,00,000

16 PBB, /-

Hauz

2 of 8 Khas

Branc

h

6. 03.05.20 Cheque No. 61506 SBI, 20,00,000/-

16 PBB,

Hauz

Khas

Branc

h

7. 05.05.20 Cheque No. 61507 SBI, 30,00,000/-

16 PBB,

Hauz

Khas

Branc

h

Total: Rs. 3,75,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crore Seventy Five Lakhs only)

(exclusive of interest)

................"

2 AMOUNT CLAIMED Aggregate outstanding amount payable by the Corporate Debtor is Rs. TO BE IN DEFAULT 6,78,79,674.00 as on 13.11.2019:

.

AND THE DATE ON

WHICH THE

(i) Principal amount due and payable: Rs. 3,75,00,000/- DEFAULT

(ii) Interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding principal as on 13.11.2019:

OCCURRED Rs. 3,03,79,674.00 (ATTACH THE

WORKINGS FOR

3 of 8 COMPUTATION OF A true and correct copy of the computation of amount and days in default is

AMOUNT AND annexed herewith and marked as Annexure I-F. DAYS OF DEFAULT

IN TABULAR

FORM)

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:

"14.10.2025: Counsel for the appellant submits that the corporate debtor was a Financial Service Provider at the time to disbursement of financial facilities. It is submitted that against the Financial Service Provider the Section 67 was not maintainable. He has also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in "CA (AT) (Ins) No. 895 of 2023 titled as Akhilesh Kumar Vs HDFC Bank Limited And Anr." decided on 06.03.2025. Ld. Counsel for the RP submits that publication has already been made. 2. Issue Notice. 3. Let Reply be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may file within a week, thereafter. List on 10.11.2025. In the meantime, RP may collate the claims but shall not constitute the Committee of Creditors."

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 4 of 8 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.

3. 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.

4. We have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the

parties and perused the record.

5. 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.

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

5 of 8 "corporate person" means a company as defined in clause (20) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013, a limited liability partnership, as defined in clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, or any other person incorporated with limited liability under any law for the time being in force but shall not include any financial service provider;

7. 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:

"financial service provider" means a person engaged in the business of providing financial services in terms of authorisation issued or registration granted by a financial sector regulator;

8. 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.

6 of 8

9. 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:

As a matter of fact, the issue regarding the appellant being NBFC and it's effect has never been before the Ld. NCLT for the purpose of seeking dismissal of the application filed under Section 7 by the Respondent. There is no dispute that the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings but since the Appellant has to prove, by leading evidence, if already not led, that it had been engaged in providing financial services, for challenging the application filed under Section 7, therefore, we find it just and expedient to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Ld. NCLT, keeping the issue open as to whether the application under Section 7 filed by the Respondent is maintainable against the present appellant in case the Appellant is a NBFC?

7 of 8

10. 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.

11. 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.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Abhishek/md

8 of 8