NCLT Delhi Admits Insolvency Plea Against Talent Unlimited Online Services Over Rs 5.77 Crore Default

The bench of Judicial Member Bachu Venkat Balaram Das and Technical Member Ravindra Chaturvedi observed,

“The acknowledgement made by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor in its reply (email dated 23.01.2026 and 10.02.2026) to the default notice dated 22.01.2026 and demand notice dated 09.02.2026 and the record of default shows that the Applicant has established existence of financial debt in terms of Section 5(8) of the Code and default in terms of Section 3(12) of the Code.”

Talent Unlimited Online Services Private Limited, incorporated in 2012, is engaged in IT services including data processing, software development, and consultancy. To meet corporate requirements, it issued secured, redeemable Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) under a Securities Subscription Agreement dated 3 March 2023 for a total consideration of Rs 25 crore. The debentures were secured by an exclusive first charge created through a Debenture Trust Deed and Deed of Hypothecation registered with the Registrar of Companies.

The corporate debtor committed its first default on 31 August 2025 by failing to service repayment obligations. Despite repeated notices, the debtor failed to cure the default. In its responses, the debtor had also admitted liability, cited liquidity constraints, and sought 9–12 months to repay, acknowledging that its business was not generating sufficient surplus even to meet operating expenses.

At a meeting convened on 18 February 2026, the Debenture Holders unanimously resolved to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Code and authorised the Applicant to file the present petition.

The corporate debtor argued that ongoing negotiations with debenture holders meant the default had not crystallised, and that the petition was an attempt to use IBC as a recovery mechanism. Further, it was contended that unless debenture holders could be recognised as financial creditors, mere description of the Applicant as "Debenture Trustee" does not automatically bring it under Section 5(7).

The bench emphasised that under Section 7 of the IBC, its role is limited to verifying the existence of financial debt and the occurrence of default. It noted that the Corporate Debtor had not denied the fact about the execution of the documents and disbursal of the amount.

The bench observed, "A mere reading of the provision under Section 7 of the IBC shows that in order to initiate CIRP under Section 7, the Applicant is required to establish that there is a financial debt and that a default has been committed in respect of that financial debt. The Code requires the adjudicating authority to only ascertain and record satisfaction in a summary adjudication regarding the occurrence of default before admitting the application."

It was further noted that the corporate debtor had admitted default in its communications, acknowledging its inability to repay and requesting time and that a record of default was filed with the Information Utility (NeSL) by the applicant. Pursuant to this the NeSL had issued a record of Default and the record of default has been placed on record by the applicant.

Accordingly, the bench admitted the petition, declared a moratorium under Section 14, and appointed Manish Agarwal as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

For Applicants: Advocates Harshit Khare, Suraj Anand and Brijesh Gupta

For Respondents: Advocates Amit Mehra, Shruti Munjal and Gurmehan Singh