Tanay Securities And Services Private ... vs Mittal Soya Protein Private Limited 1

IN THE MATTER OF: Tanay Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Mittal Soya Protein Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellants : Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sinha Shrey Nikhilesh, Mr. Prath Davar, Mr. Swastik Verma and Mr. Naman Kapoor, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Vijayesh Atre and Ms. Aarya Chhangani, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

24.09.2025 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the NCLT, Indore

Bench, dismissing the Section 7 application filed by the financial creditor

against the corporate debtor. The application was filed claiming a debt and

default of Rs.4,08,78,824/-. The adjudicating authority heard the parties and

returned a finding that corporate debtor has substantially paid the amount

claimed except the sum of Rs.19,19,500/- which is below the statutory

threshold of Rs. 1 crore hence petition under Section 7 is rejected.

Adjudicating authority while dismissing the application has imposed penalty

under Section 65 of the IBC. Appellant aggrieved by the order admitting

Section 7 application and imposing penalty under Section 65 has come up in

this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the

adjudicating authority itself found the debt and that it was substantially paid

there was no occasion for passing an order under Section 65 that too Suo

Moto.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the amount of Rs.

19,19,500/- was also paid and further the financial creditor was also

shareholder of the corporate debtor. Respondent submits that financial

creditor were also co-promoters.

5. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

6. The finding which has been returned by the adjudicating authority in

paragraph 39 are as follows:

"39. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the twin requirements of "debt" and "default" are not fully met. Moreover, the CD has substantially repaid the amounts claimed, except the disputed sum of ₹19,19,500, which in any event falls below the statutory threshold of ₹1 crore. Accordingly, the petition under Section 7 of the IBC is rejected."

7. Adjudicating authority thus itself has found the debt which according

to the adjudicating authority was substantially repaid. When the debt was

found and it was held to be repaid, we are of the view that present was not a

case for imposing any penalty under Section 65, as far as order of the

adjudicating authority rejecting Section 7 application, we agree with the

reasoning given in paragraph 39 of the order.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1485 of 2025 2 of 3

8. We thus maintain the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting

Section 7 application however set aside the orders and directions in paragraph

41 of the order.

Appeal is partly allowed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1485 of 2025 3 of 3