NCLT Ahmedabad Admits Aphelion Finance's ₹6.72 Crore Section 7 Petition Against Osia Hyper Retail

The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 28 April admitted a Section 7 petition filed by Aphelion Finance Pvt. Ltd. against Osia Hyper Retail Ltd, thereby initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and appointing Ritesh Prakash Adatiya as Interim Resolution Professional.

Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr V.G. Venkata Chalapathy held that once financial debt and default are shown through sanction letters, credit facility agreements, and guarantees, a Section 7 petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is maintainable and must be admitted if statutory requirements are met. They observed:

“The applicant is mentioned as lender partner and the CD as “Institution or Anchor” and the agreed amount is Rs.7.50 crores repayable at the end of every cycle. Credit Facility agreement signed with its annexures and the sanction letter through GACPL are enough to connect the link between the financial creditor and the CD, and there is admitted /failure to repay the debt.”

Aphelion Finance, operating through Greenizone Agritech Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (GACPL) as its lending service provider, extended credit facilities to vendors associated with Osia Hyper Retail, including Paras Trading Corporation, Vinayak Trading Corporation, and VR Food. On 10 August 2023, GACPL issued an in-principle sanction letter approving a credit limit of Rs 7.5 crore, with Osia acting as guarantor and anchor for the facility structure.

Between August 2023 and September 2024, Aphelion disbursed Rs 7.35 crore to the vendors. When repayments were not made, the financial creditor issued recall notices in December 2024, followed by a demand notice in January 2025 claiming Rs 8.45 crore. After partial adjustments, the outstanding liability stood at Rs 6.72 crore as of May 2025.

Osia Hyper Retail opposed the petition, raising objections including alleged defects in Form-1 and challenging the enforceability of sanction letters and guarantees on the ground that they were executed without valid board resolutions.

Aphelion, however, submitted that Osia had acknowledged liability through partial payments and that the credit facility agreements clearly identified Osia as guarantor and anchor. It further contended that the structure of lending through vendors was duly authorised and evidenced by sanction documents linking the corporate debtor to the transactions.

The Tribunal found that financial debt stood established through the sanction letter, credit facility agreements, promissory notes, and guarantees, and held that Osia's role as guarantor and anchor created a direct liability under Section 5(8) of the IBC.

Accordingly, the NCLT admitted the petition under Section 7 and commenced CIRP against Osia Hyper Retail Ltd.

For Appellants: Senior Advocate Amar N Bhatt with Advocate Kunal Vaishnav

For Respondents: Advocate Arjun Padhiyar