NCLT Mumbai Admits Tata Capital’s Insolvency Plea Against Dharan Infra Over ₹28 Crore Default
Pranav B Prem
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench–VI, has admitted an insolvency application filed by Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited against Dharan Infra-EPC Limited, holding that the financial creditor had successfully established the existence of a financial debt and default exceeding ₹28 crore. The Tribunal initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor after finding the application to be complete and in compliance with Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar observed that once the existence of debt and default is proved, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to admit the application. Recording its satisfaction, the Tribunal held, “We are, therefore, of the considered view that the present Application filed by the FC is complete in terms of Section 7 of the IBC and deserves to be admitted.”
The insolvency application was filed on 31 May 2025, with Tata Capital claiming a default amount of ₹28,04,91,115 as on 20 May 2025. The lender had extended construction finance facilities of ₹35 crore in December 2018 and ₹45 crore in May 2019, which were disbursed in multiple tranches pursuant to sanction letters and facility agreements executed between the parties. Despite initial repayments, Dharan Infra failed to adhere to the repayment schedule and made only partial and irregular payments, resulting in persistent defaults. The loan account was eventually classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 7 February 2023, which was taken as the date of default.
Tata Capital relied upon various documents, including sanction letters, facility agreements, registered mortgage deeds, statements of account, demand notices issued under the SARFAESI Act, and repeated acknowledgements of liability by the corporate debtor. These acknowledgements included replies to demand notices, affidavits filed in proceedings before the Bombay High Court, and proposals for one-time settlement, all of which, according to the lender, clearly demonstrated the subsistence of debt and default.
Opposing the plea, Dharan Infra contended that the insolvency application was not maintainable on account of pendency of arbitration-related proceedings and proceedings before the Bombay High Court arising out of the same transaction. It was argued that such proceedings indicated a dispute and that the Tribunal ought to exercise discretion in refusing admission. The corporate debtor also relied on Supreme Court judgments, including K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. and Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited, to submit that the insolvency process should not be triggered.
Rejecting these objections, the Tribunal held that pendency of arbitration or other proceedings does not bar the admission of a Section 7 application once debt and default are established. Relying on settled law, including Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. and subsequent judgments, the Bench reiterated that disputes raised by the corporate debtor are irrelevant at the admission stage under Section 7, so long as the debt is due and payable. It further noted that the corporate debtor had repeatedly acknowledged its liability, thereby negating its objections to maintainability.
On the issue of limitation, the Tribunal observed that the application was filed well within the prescribed period of three years from the date of default. It noted that acknowledgements of liability and part-payments made by the corporate debtor also resulted in extension of limitation under the Limitation Act, thereby rendering the insolvency plea timely.
Accordingly, the Tribunal admitted the insolvency application, declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, and appointed Palak Swapnil Desai as the Interim Resolution Professional. The Tribunal also directed Tata Capital to deposit ₹3 lakh towards initial CIRP costs and issued consequential directions for public announcement and conduct of the insolvency process in accordance with law. The application was thus allowed, and CIRP was formally initiated against Dharan Infra-EPC Limited.
Appearance
For Financial Creditor: Advocate Sanjeev Singh, Anshita Argal
For Corporate Debtor: Advocate Swapnil Balajiwale
Cause Title: Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited vs Dharan Infra-EPC Limited
Case No: CP(IB)/729(MB)2025
Coram: Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma, Technical Member Sameer Kakar
