Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Q West Infrastructure Private Limited vs Grevek Investments And Finance Private ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal7 August 2025

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of a Section 7 application cannot stand where the respondent's only objection, non-service of the demand notice, is removed by the respondent's own admission before the Tribunal, since the remaining defences were already rejected below and the debt was admitted; in such circumstances the Tribunal directs admission of the petition.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHIComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 565 of 2025

(Arising out of the Order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court V in CP (IB) No. 260/IB/MB/2024)

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s, Q West Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Karanja Logistics Pvt. Ltd.) ONE BKC, Unit No. 610, 6th Floor, C Wing, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 ...Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s Grevek Investment and Finance Pvt. Ltd. 3rd floor, Khetan Bhavan, Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 ...Respondent(s)

Present:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Sr. Adv., Ms. Rajul Jain & Ms. Poorvi Rawalia, Advocates for Appellant.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 565 of 2025 2

JUDGMENT

(07.08.2025)

As Per: Justice N. Seshasayee (Member) Judicial

This appeal is preferred by the Financial Creditor challenging the

impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 24.03.2025 rejecting his

application to initiate a CIRP proceedings against the corporate guarantor of the

principal borrower of the Appellant.

2. The facts are as below:

a) The appellant had advanced a sum of Rs. 11.00 crores to the principal

borrower which he did not repay. The value of the debt including the

interest payable on the principal sum was Rs. 17,90,73,973/-. This debt

is admitted and for the said debt the respondent herein had offered

corporate guarantee.

b) On 01.01.2024 the appellant had issued a notice to the respondent

invoking the corporate guarantee given by the latter. As the sum

demanded was not paid, the appellant laid a petition for initiating CIRP.

c) The respondent entered appearance before the Adjudicating Authority and

has filed the reply. In its reply it is inter alia contended that the appellant

has not produced anything to show that the notice invoking the bank

guarantee had actually been served on the Respondent.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 565 of 2025 3

3. The contention of the respondent was accepted by the Adjudicating Authority

that the Appellant has not produced any evidence that the notice invoking

the guarantee was served on the respondent. This order is now under

challenge.

4. The Learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

a) Nowhere the respondent has denied that it has not been served with the

notice in question. Even in its reply before the Adjudicating Authority it

has merely contended that proof of service was not produced but there

was no specific denial of the non-receipt of said notice. However, before

this Appellate Tribunal the same has been produced as Annexure-8 where

the respondent has been made an endorsement on the margin regarding

the receipt of the said notice.

b) This apart the appellant has notified about the liability of the corporate

debtor and its nonpayment to the Information Utility, and same, after

enquiry by the information utility, was found to be true and it accordingly

authenticated the claim of the appellant and given it the colour code

'Green' as per Information Utilities Regulations, 2017.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as per his instructions

his client has received the notice invoking the guarantee from the appellant.

5. The statement of the respondents's counsel puts to rest the contention raised

by the appellant. On a perusal of the impugned order we find that the

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 565 of 2025 4

Adjudicating Authority has entered findings in favour of the appellant vis-à-

vis the defence raised by the respondent in its reply except the issue as to

service of notice invoking bank guarantee on the respondent. Now this issue

too is decided in favour of the appellant.

6. In conclusion this Tribunal allows this appeal and sets aside the impugned

order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 24.03.2025, and require the said

authority to admit the petition filed by the appellant to initiate CIRP.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Shweta

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 565 of 2025

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