Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 410
📌 Paras 1-3
The respondent, a money lender, advanced loans to the appellant in 2010, leading to dishonoured cheques and subsequent proceedings. A money decree was passed by the Delhi High Court, upheld by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. Despite this, the respondent initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), alleging default on the decretal amount. The appellant, stated to be a solvent and functioning enterprise, had made substantial deposits towards the decree and faced discrepancies in the respondent's claimed debt amounts before different forums.
📌 Paras 4-5
Whether the initiation and continuation of CIRP under Section 7 of the IBC is justifi
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial