Tanay Securities And Services Private ... vs Organic World Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1486 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a corporate debtor, in reply to a recall notice, has admitted liability to repay an unsecured loan upon the repayment of its bank facilities, and the adjudicating authority has itself recorded that admission, the subsequent closure of the bank facilities removes the stated condition, and the admission thereby supports the existence of the debt for the purpose of a Section 7 application, such that the rejection of that application on the ground of unproven liability cannot stand and the matter must be remitted for fresh consideration on all submissions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1486 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Tanay Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Organic World Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sinha Shrey Nikhilesh, Mr. Parth Davar, Mr. Swastik Verma, Advocates
For Respondents : Mr. Vijayesh A, Mr. Aarya Chhangan, Advocates
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
24.02.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel for Appellant and Ld. Counsel appearing
for the Respondent.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority dated 11/09/2025, by which section 7 Application filed by the
Appellant has been rejected.
3. The brief fact necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are, the
Appellant claim to have given unsecured loan to the Corporate Debtor, the
Applicant were shareholders in the CD. Recall notice was given on 21/08/2024
by the Appellant to the CD requesting the CD to discharge a debt of
Rs. 2,24,97,222/-. Reply was sent by e-mail dated 05/09/2021, where in Para
6, following was stated :
"6. However, the company would be able to return your unsecured loan after repayment of the entire loan facility availed by Organic World from the Bank, which is possible only by selling the assets of the company for which endeavors are being made by the Company".
4. The Appellant thereafter filed a Section 7 Application, in which notices
were issued. Parties filed their replies and by impugned order, the Adjudicating
Authority has rejected Section 7 Application and also imposed cost of
Rs. 2,00,000. The Adjudicating Authority, in Para 45 of the order has noticed
the reply and made following observations :
"45. The Corporate Debtor in its reply to notice of 21.08.2023 (vide email of 05.09.2023 (paragraph 22 of this order) had admitted the liability of the repayment of unsecured loan after repayment of the entire loan facility availed from the Bank. The CD has replied that the repayment of the unsecured loan is subject to settlement of the dues of the Bank. On the other hand, the Applicant has claimed the understanding between the CD and the Petitioner was only that the unsecured loan shall be due and payable by the CD as per the demand. However, this assertion of the Applicant is unsupported by any evidence."
5. The Adjudicating Authority when noticed the admission of liability of the
repayment of unsecured loan after repayment of the entire loan facility availed
from the bank, the same was relevant factor and indicated the admission of
unsecured debt.
6. Appellant, in this Appeal has brought on record the letter issued by the
State Bank of India dated 06/06/2025 that entire loan facilities given to the CD
has been closed on 14/02/2025. The letter dated 06/06/2025 is as follows.
2 of 4 TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that M/S Organic World Private Limited had availed a Working capital and Term Loan limit with other Facilities like CEL Limit, EPC Limit, GECL and Warehouse Receivable Discounting had also been availed and closed. This exposure has been properly discharged on 14.02.2025 & no dues remain on the customer in respect for above mentioned account.
We have also cancelled our applicable Hypothecation charge on current assets like stocks & receivables & charge on Factory building & land for same.
7. Although Adjudicating Authority, in the impugned order has also made
various other observations for rejecting the Section 7 Application, we are of the
view that in view of the observations made in Para 45 as noted above and the
reply given in Para 6, and the facts that the loan of the State Bank of India has
been closed, the amount of SBI having been paid, Para 45 of the order of the
Adjudicating Authority clearly contains an admission of liability of unsecured
loan. There were also on the record TDS certificates, which has been mentioned
in Paragraph 40 of the Impugned orders.
8. We thus are of the view that, in facts of the present case ends of justice be
served in setting aside by the impugned order and reviving the Section 7
Application before the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. We make
it clear that it shall be open for both the Parties to raise all their submissions
and fresh order need to be passed by the Adjudicating Authority considering all
facts and submissions.
3 of 4
9. The Adjudicating Authority shall endeavour to dispose of the matter
expeditiously.
10. With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md
4 of 4
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