Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 429
📌 Paras 3-5
The appellant was the erstwhile Director of two Corporate Debtors (CDs) who had defaulted on loans sanctioned in 2014. The accounts were declared NPA on 06.12.2016. The original lender, DHFL, went into CIRP, and its resolution plan was approved by PCHFL. PCHFL assigned the loans to the respondent, Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. The respondent filed a Section 7 application under the IBC on 23.09.2024. The NCLT admitted the application, holding it within limitation. The NCLAT affirmed this, finding that the admission of the debt by the Resolution Professional (RP) in a prior CIRP constituted a valid acknowledgment, extending the limitation period.
📌 Para 2, Para 11
The central issues were whether the Section 7 applic
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