Chaurasia Holdings Private Limited vs York Realtors Private Limited

Chaurasia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus York Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Mr. Harsh Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent : ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

26.09.2025: This appeal is preferred by the Financial Creditor who's petition under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 has been dismissed as not maintainable since according to the Tribunal there was no debt as the Appellant was not a NBFC. It has to be stated that no notice was ordered on the Respondent/CD.

2. Before this Tribunal notice was attempted to be served on the Respondents through regular process and as it did not bring the Respondent before this Tribunal, it granted substituted notice and this was complied with. Still Respondent chose not to appear.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was commercial transaction between the appellant and the Respondent from the FY 2008- 2009 to 2013-14. In all, according to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 21 crores was paid, of which the Corporate Debtor had re-paid Rs.19.0 crores, leaving a balance of Rs. 2.0 crores. According to the appellant the loan was advanced as part of the business relationship, but without any written documents to evidences the loan. However, the balance sheet of the Respondent for the FY 2018-19 to 2021-22 shows the balance amount of Rs. 2 crores due to the appellant as a short term loan.

Cont'd..../ -2-

4. At the point when the Tribunal is required to consider whether notice must be ordered to the Respondent or not, it is only required to consider if a prima facie case is made out for ordering notice. In other words, no meticulous analysis of the evidentiary facts are required to be under taken at that stage. This Tribunal perused the material records on the basis of which the Appellant is now trying to establish a cause for instituting a CIRP under Section 7 of IBC, 2016. Prima Facie there is a debt and default. The truth of these statements however can be ascertained only when the Adjudicating Authority consider the material for the purposes of admitting a CIRP. This Tribunal considers that it is too pre-mature a stage when the Adjudicating Authority could dismiss this petition without even ordering notice on the Respondents.

5. We find that the Appellant has established a prima facie case which warrants issuing notice on the Respondent. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 04.12.2024 in CP (IB) No. 662 (ND)/2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority and it is required to order notice to the Respondent on the petition.

[Justice N Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 192 of 2025