Mr. Akshay Kumar Rout Prop. Of Jagannath ... vs Indo Laminates Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1455 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the timing of the purchase of stamp paper and the date of execution of the loan agreement, relative to the disbursements, is not a relevant consideration for rejecting the application where the disbursement of the financial debt is not disputed. The solvency of the corporate debtor and the absence of any prior record of financial delinquency between the parties are not grounds for rejecting a Section 7 application where the existence and default of the financial debt are otherwise established.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Akshay Kumar Rout, Prop of Jagannath Traders ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Indo Laminates Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vipul Ganda, Ms. Nitin Barik, Mr. Akash Madan and Mr. Gyanesh Tiwary, Advocates.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shikhar Gupta and Mr. Pragun Bagla, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
12.02.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel
for the Respondent.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.08.2025
passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which Section 7 application filed by
the Appellant has been rejected. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has filed an
application under Section 7 for the alleged default amount of Rs.
1,13,45,000/- as on 03.05.2025.
3. Notices were issued by the Adjudicating Authority to which reply
was also filed. In the reply, the Corporate Debtor admitted having obtained
financial facilities of Rs. 1,05,00,000/-, however, Adjudicating Authority has
rejected the application. Observation made by the Adjudicating Authority in
Para 23 and 24 are as follows:
"23. A bare reading of the various clauses of the agreement shows that the stamp paper for the execution of the loan agreement was purchased on 12.02.2025, whereas the agreement was executed/signed on 01.03.2025 for the disbursals made from 16.01.2025 to 25.02.2025. This approach of the parties casts a doubt about the bona fides of the Applicant, and such irregularity prima facie suggests a deliberate attempt to retrospectively regularize the transaction.
24. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the Respondent Company is a solvent company who had a long-standing business relationship with the Applicant. There has been no prior record of financial delinquency or breach of contractual obligations by the Respondent vis-a-vis the Applicant."
4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that
the fact that stamp paper was purchased on 12.02.2025 and the agreement
was executed on 01.03.2025 was not relevant factor for rejecting the
agreement. He further submitted that in any view of the matter disbursement
through banking channel having not been denied, agreement or no-
agreement, the disbursal of the Financial Debt was proved. He further
submits that the observation of the Adjudicating Authority that the
Respondent Company is solvent Company and there has been no prior record
of the financial discrepancy was not a reason to reject the Application. Ld.
Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that there has been order
admitting the Corporate Debtor into Insolvency. One of such order has been
brought on record as annexure A-16.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent does not dispute that the amount
of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- was extended by the Financial Creditor. It is further
submitted that the Corporate Debtor tried to settle the matter but no
2 of 3 settlement could take place, however, as on date the Corporate Debtor was
not in position to pay the entire amount claimed.
6. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. From the Material which has been brought on the record, it is
clear that disbursement was not disputed. The repayment of certain amount
was made by the Corporate Debtor which is reflected in Bank Statement filed
along with the Appeal. The observation of the Adjudicating Authority that the
stamp paper was purchased on 12.02.2025 and agreement was executed on
01.03.2025 can not be any relevant consideration for rejecting Section 7
application. Observations in Para 23 and 24, as noted above, can not be basis
for rejection of the application. We, thus, are of the view that order of the
Adjudicating Authority rejecting Section 7 application can not be sustained.
Appeal is allowed. The order dated 05.08.2025 is set aside. Application under
Section 7 CP(IB) 313/ND/2025 is revived before the Adjudicating Authority
for passing order afresh in accordance with law.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Abhishek/md
3 of 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free