Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench at New Delhi, has revived an insolvency petition filed by Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited, formerly known as Sony Pictures Network India Private Limited, against Odisha-based fintech firm Rechargekit Fintech Private Limited, holding that the insolvency court erred in dismissing the plea without granting an opportunity to cure defects relating to authorisation. The appellate tribunal set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter to the NCLT, Cuttack Bench, for fresh consideration.

Also Read: No Steps Taken For Fresh ₹140-Crore Rights Issue; Aakash Tells NCLAT In Byju’s Dispute

A Bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) passed the order on December 10, 2025, in an appeal filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal emphasised that procedural defects cannot result in outright dismissal without first complying with the statutory requirement of granting time to rectify such defects.

The dispute arises from a 2021 agreement under which Culver Max, the operator of the Sony LIV platform, engaged Rechargekit to market discounted premium subscription plans of Sony LIV. As per the agreement, Rechargekit was required to meet a minimum annual guarantee of ₹6 crore. Culver Max claimed that while it had provided technical access and thousands of subscription codes to Rechargekit, the fintech firm had paid only ₹5.33 lakh against invoices amounting to ₹3.02 crore.

Culver Max initiated insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC before the NCLT, Cuttack, alleging default in payment of operational dues. However, by an order dated April 30, 2024, the NCLT dismissed the petition on the ground that the application had not been filed with proper authorisation. The NCLT further observed that the alleged debt was below the statutory threshold of ₹1 crore.

Challenging this dismissal, Culver Max argued before the appellate tribunal that once the NCLT found the authorisation to be defective, it was duty-bound under the proviso to Section 9(5)(ii)(a) of the IBC to issue a notice and grant an opportunity to rectify the defect, instead of rejecting the petition outright. It was contended that even if the original board resolution was deficient, the tribunal ought to have permitted the filing of a corrected authorisation.

The NCLAT agreed with this submission and relied on its earlier ruling in Tek Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Altius Travels Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was held that the IBC is a self-contained code and mandates that applicants be given an opportunity to cure defects in an incomplete application. The Bench observed that “it was the duty of the Ld. NCLT to at least put the appellant to notice requiring him to rectify the defect in the application and admittedly the said opportunity was not given in the present case.”

Also Read: Belated Tax Claims Cannot Reopen Concluded Liquidation: NCLAT Dismisses Tamil Nadu State Tax Dept Appeal

The appellate tribunal clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the insolvency claim, including the issue relating to the quantum of debt. It held that rejection of the petition without following the mandatory procedure rendered the impugned order legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s dismissal order and remanded the matter to the NCLT, Cuttack Bench, directing it to grant Culver Max an opportunity to cure the defect in authorisation and thereafter hear the matter on merits. The tribunal further directed that the exercise be completed preferably within two months, while keeping all rights and contentions of the parties open.

Appearance

For Appellant: Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda with Advocates Nikita Jaitly, Varsha, Abhyuday Mishra, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Kritika Sachdeva, and Varun Khanna

For Respondent: Senior Advocate Prashanto Sen, Advocates Nihit Nagpal, Shuchita Chaubey, and Sayantan Chanda.

Cause Title: Culver Max Entertainment Pvt Ltd v. Rechargekit Fintech Pvt Ltd.

Case No: Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.1167/2024

Coram: Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member), Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member)