Q West Infrastructure Private Limited vs Grevek Investments And Finance Private ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 565 of 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
(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