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, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) after finding a financial default exceeding ₹28 crore.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar held that Tata Capital had clearly established the existence of a financial debt and default, satisfying the requirements under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal observed that once debt and default are proved, the Adjudicating Authority has no discretion but to admit the application.
The insolvency plea was filed on 31 May 2025, with Tata Capital claiming a default amount of ₹28.04 crore as on 20 May 2025. The lender had extended construction finance facilities of ₹35 crore in December 2018 and ₹45 crore in May 2019, disbursed in multiple tranches pursuant to sanction letters and facility agreements. While Dharan Infra initially made repayments, it later defaulted repeatedly and made only partial and irregular payments. The loan account was classified as a non-performing asset on 7 February 2023, which was treated as the date of default.
To support its claim, Tata Capital relied on sanction letters, facility agreements, registered mortgage deeds, statements of account, SARFAESI demand notices, and several acknowledgements of liability by the corporate debtor. These included replies to demand notices, affidavits filed before the Bombay High Court, and one-time settlement proposals, which the Tribunal found sufficient to demonstrate subsisting debt and default.
Dharan Infra opposed the application, arguing that the insolvency proceedings were not maintainable due to the pendency of arbitration-related proceedings and cases before the Bombay High Court arising from the same transaction. It relied on Supreme Court decisions, including K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. and Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited, to contend that the Tribunal should refuse admission.
Rejecting these submissions, the NCLT reiterated that disputes or parallel proceedings are irrelevant at the admission stage of a Section 7 application once debt and default are established. Relying on Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. and other settled precedents, the Bench held that pendency of arbitration or other proceedings does not bar initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor.
On limitation, the Tribunal held that the application was filed within three years from the date of default. It further noted that acknowledgements of liability and part-payments by the corporate debtor extended the limitation period under the Limitation Act.
Accordingly, the NCLT admitted the insolvency application, declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, and appointed Palak Swapnil Desai as the Interim Resolution Professional. Tata Capital was directed to deposit ₹3 lakh towards initial CIRP costs, and consequential directions were issued for public announcement and conduct of the insolvency process. With this, CIRP has formally commenced against Dharan Infra-EPC Limited.
