NCLT Delhi Admits Prudent ARC CIRP Plea Against Super Property, Says No Bar From Transferred Winding-Up

The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 16 June admitted an insolvency petition filed by Prudent ARC Ltd against Super Property Maintenance Pvt Ltd, holding that transferred winding-up proceedings, where no irreversible steps have been taken, do not bar initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Bench of President Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Technical Member Ravindra observed:

“Further, the order records confirmation from the official liquidator that no attachment orders have been issued by the office of the Official Liquidator in respect of any property, immovable or otherwise, and thus, in principle, no irreversible steps have been taken towards winding up of the Company; however, a claim for liquidation expenses exists. It has further been recorded that the Official Liquidator has no objection to the transfer.

Therefore, it is for that reason that this Tribunal is satisfied that the transferred proceedings can validly be considered under Section 7 of the Code and that initiation of CIRP is not barred.”

The petition arose from a financial debt of Rs. 30.56 crore, originating from credit facilities sanctioned by Lakshmi Vilas Bank between 2016–2018, subsequently transferred to DBS Bank India Ltd., and finally assigned to Prudent ARC Ltd under an Assignment Agreement dated 28 April 2023.

Super Property Maintenance Pvt Ltd had availed a term loan of Rs. 21 crore and overdraft facilities aggregating to Rs. 21.91 crore. The account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset on 24 April 2018.

Winding-up proceedings were originally initiated before the Delhi High Court in 2012 and admitted in 2019, with an Official Liquidator appointed. However, no auction or sale of assets was undertaken. The proceedings were later transferred to the NCLT in 2025 pursuant to a High Court order dated 18 August 2025.

The Tribunal noted that transferred winding-up proceedings may be considered under the Code where no significant post-admission irreversible steps have been taken. It further noted that the Official Liquidator had raised no objection to the transfer and confirmed that no attachment orders existed against the company's assets.

The Bench also held that non-representation by the Corporate Debtor or its ex-directors did not impede admission, particularly where the Official Liquidator had already indicated no objection. It further observed that the debt constituted a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the IBC and met the threshold under Section 4.

Accordingly, the NCLT admitted the petition, imposed a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, and appointed CS Vikas Kumar Garg, representing Value Plus Insolvency Resolution Professionals Ltd., as the Interim Resolution Professional.

For Petitioners: Advocate Kunal Godhwani