NCLT Indore Rejects Colama Commercial's Intervention Plea In Satiate Agri Insolvency

The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 20 August dismissed an intervention application filed by Colama Commercial Co. Ltd. in the insolvency proceedings initiated by Excellence Finance Pvt. Ltd. against Satiate Agri Ltd.

A Bench of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta held that a financial creditor cannot claim priority in the adjudication of its own insolvency petition or intervene in another creditor's insolvency proceedings merely because it had filed its petition earlier. It observed:

“As regards the prayer seeking priority in the admission or adjudication of the Applicant's own Section 7 Petition, we find that the Code does not provide for any such priority merely on the ground that an earlier petition has been filed by another Financial Creditor.

The fact that the Applicant's Section 7 Petition was filed earlier in point of time also does not create any statutory right of intervention or priority in the present proceedings.”

Colama Commercial, a registered non-banking financial company (NBFC), claimed to be a financial creditor of Satiate Agri. It had filed its own Section 7 petition in December 2025, supported by a Record of Default from the National e-Governance Services Ltd. (NeSL).

The application sought intervention in the Section 7 petition filed by Excellence Finance against Satiate Agri. Colama contended that subsequent charges and security interests created by Satiate Agri in favour of Excellence Finance and Swan Finance had diluted its security rights and voting share in the prospective Committee of Creditors.

Colama also relied on Clause 5.2(i) of its Loan Agreement, which, according to the applicant, restricted Satiate Agri from creating security interests over its assets without its prior written consent.

While Colama's petition was pending, Excellence Finance filed a separate Section 7 petition against Satiate Agri in June 2026. Colama consequently sought to intervene in those proceedings to protect its interests and sought priority adjudication of its earlier petition.

Satiate Agri opposed the application, arguing that Colama had no locus standi to intervene merely because it claimed that the outcome of the proceedings could affect it. It submitted that Colama was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings.

The Corporate Debtor further argued that Colama had already invoked its statutory remedy by filing a separate petition and could not introduce issues arising from that petition into proceedings initiated by another financial creditor. It alleged that Colama's Rs. 4.10 crore loan transaction was collusive and backdated.

It was also submitted that issues relating to creation of charges, forensic audit and priority should be examined in Colama's own proceedings rather than through an intervention application.

Excellence Finance submitted that its petition was confined to establishing the existence of debt and default and did not involve adjudication of whether Colama's loan was secured or unsecured. It argued that any alleged breach of Colama's loan covenants was irrelevant to its Section 7 petition.

The Bench, relying on the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment in Vekas Kumar Garg v. DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., reiterated that at the pre-admission stage, only the financial creditor and the corporate debtor are necessary parties and that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not contemplate intervention by third parties. It observed:

“The Applicant has already availed its independent remedy by filing CP (IB) No.78/MP/2025, and the pendency of the said proceeding does not confer upon it a right to intervene in the present petition.”

The Tribunal also held that Colama's grievances concerning charges, loan covenants and voting rights arose from its independent claim and had to be pursued in its own proceedings. It further held that reliefs such as restraining Satiate Agri from creating further charges could not be granted by invoking the NCLT's inherent jurisdiction in pre-admission proceedings.

It clarified that Colama's rights remained open in its independent proceedings and that, upon commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), it could submit its claim before the Resolution Professional.

Accordingly, the NCLT dismissed the Intervention Application, holding that Colama had failed to establish any legal basis for intervention.