Insolvency Plea Can't Be Dismissed On Fraud Claims Without Proof: NCLT Ahmedabad
Section 65 Requires Proof of Mala Fides
While admitting insolvency proceedings against Turnrest Resources, the NCLT held that Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) applies only when fraud or mala fides are proven with evidence, not mere allegations.
Case Background
The proceedings arose from a petition filed by HDFC Bank Ltd on July 11, 2025, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Turnrest Resources for a default of Rs 30.5 crore.
The bank submitted sanction letters, supplemental agreements, an acknowledgment of debt dated October 1, 2023, and a demand notice issued on December 12, 2024.
Tribunal Rejects Allegations
Turnrest had sought dismissal of the plea under Section 65, alleging that HDFC acted maliciously by pursuing parallel proceedings and releasing certain guarantors without disclosure.
However, the tribunal held that the bank had clearly established the existence of debt and default, and that no evidence of collusion or malice was produced by the corporate debtor.
CIRP Admitted
The tribunal noted that the release of guarantors under a separate commercial agreement did not affect the bank's right to initiate CIRP.
Concluding that Section 65 allegations were unsupported, the NCLT admitted Turnrest Resources into CIRP, imposed a moratorium, appointed Rajendra Devidas Puranik as Interim Resolution Professional, and directed HDFC Bank to deposit Rs 5 lakh towards initial insolvency costs.
(KNN Bureau)
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images,
videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright
issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.

Comments
No comment