Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, comprising K.R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member), has held that use of scanned documents through the banned “CamScanner” application does not render a Section 7 insolvency petition inadmissible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Also Read: NCLT Mumbai Admits Insolvency Plea Against Ratan Tata-Backed EV Startup Tork Motors Over ₹1.29 Crore Default

Dismissing an application filed by the Corporate Debtor challenging the maintainability of a Section 7 petition filed by Central Bank of India, the Tribunal clarified that proceedings under the IBC are summary in nature, and at the stage of admission, the Adjudicating Authority is only required to satisfy itself on the existence of debt and default, not to test the evidentiary admissibility of scanned or photocopied documents.

Background

The application was filed by N Kumar Projects & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) in CP (IB)/569(MB)/2024, challenging the maintainability of the main insolvency petition filed by Central Bank of India (Financial Creditor) under Section 7 of the IBC. The Corporate Debtor argued that the documents annexed to the petition—being photocopies and scanned copies generated through the “CamScanner” mobile application—were inadmissible under the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). It contended that the use of a prohibited app for scanning documents intended for judicial proceedings raised serious concerns regarding cybersecurity and procedural propriety. The Corporate Debtor further sought a direction to the Tribunal’s Registry to intimate the Central Government regarding the alleged “ultra vires” use of CamScanner by officials of the bank.

Submissions

For the Corporate Debtor: It was argued that the photocopies and scanned copies annexed to the petition were inadmissible as secondary evidence, since they were neither compared with originals nor properly notarized. The debtor maintained that every document must be proved through primary evidence, and in the absence of the same, secondary evidence could not be relied upon unless strict conditions under the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam were met.

For the Financial Creditor: Counsel for Central Bank of India opposed the application, contending that it was frivolous and intended to delay the insolvency admission proceedings. The financial creditor argued that the execution of the loan documents, debt, and default had not been disputed by the Corporate Debtor. It was also submitted that all documents were notarized and duly certified in accordance with the NCLT Rules, 2016, and that the originals could be produced if required.

It was further argued that the Corporate Debtor’s own One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal submitted to the bank demonstrated acknowledgment of debt and default, making the current application devoid of merit.

Tribunal’s Observations

The Bench noted that under Rule 23(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, every petition or application may be accompanied by documents duly certified by the authorized representative or advocate filing them, verified from the originals. Hence, the procedural framework permits filing of certified copies, and there is no requirement for primary evidence at the admission stage of a Section 7 petition. The Tribunal emphasized that the IBC is a summary proceeding, and it is sufficient for the Adjudicating Authority to be satisfied that:

• A debt is due from the Corporate Debtor; and

• The default has occurred.

“It is not necessary for us to consider and determine whether the ‘Scanner Application’ used by the Financial Creditor to scan the documents produced in the main petition is banned for some reason by the Government,” the Bench observed. It further held that the admissibility or evidentiary value of scanned documents is not a matter to be examined during admission of an IBC petition, and that the NCLT cannot declare such photocopies or scanned copies inadmissible at this preliminary stage. The Bench clarified:“All the documents produced by the Financial Creditor are required to be scrutinized before an order is passed in the main petition. Further, IBC being a summary proceeding, it is not for this Adjudicating Authority to declare certain photocopies/scanned documents as inadmissible at this stage or to intimate the Central Government regarding the use of CamScanner.”

Decision

The NCLT held that the petition met all procedural requirements, and the challenge based on the use of the CamScanner app was legally untenable. Accordingly, the application filed by the Corporate Debtor was dismissed as not maintainable.

Also Read: NCLT Ahmedabad Allows Former Promoters To File Oppression & Mismanagement Plea Against Indian Commodity Exchange; Holds PMLA-Attached Shares Count Toward 10% Threshold

The NCLT Mumbai clarified that use of scanned documents, even through banned applications like CamScanner, cannot by itself render a Section 7 petition inadmissible, as long as the documents are duly certified and verified. The decision reiterates that summary insolvency proceedings do not involve detailed evidentiary scrutiny, and the focus remains on establishing debt and default rather than testing the mode of document preparation.

Appearance

For Corporate Debtor: Adv. Partho Sarkar a/w Adv. Nikesh Uparpelli i/b Vidhi Legal.

For Financial Creditor: Adv. Amit Tungare

Cause Title: Central Bank of India v. N Kumar Projects & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Case No: IA 4736(MB)2025 IN C.P. (IB)/569(MB)2024

Coram: K.R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member), Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member)