# In the matter of Manisha Nimesh Mehta vs. Technology Development Board

> HC judgment dated 2024-12-20. Citation: TCN-2024-HC-00003. The case involves a writ petition filed by Mrs. Manisha Nimesh Mehta, promoter and guarantor of…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 20 Dec 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-HC-00003
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/manisha-nimesh-mehta-vs-technology-development-board-7528f888

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a writ petition filed by Mrs. Manisha Nimesh Mehta, promoter and guarantor of M/s. Perfect Infraengineers Ltd., against Technology Development Board (TDB) and others, challenging orders passed by the NCLT-1, Mumbai, and seeking various declarations regarding the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the SARFAESI Act, RDB Act, and IBC. The petitioner alleges bias and lack of jurisdiction on the part of the NCLT members, and claims to be an MSME entitled to protection under the MSMED Act. The petitioner also contends that ICICI Bank wrongly classified the company's loan account as NPA and acted mala fide to prevent the petitioner from receiving funds from TDB. The petitioner has filed multiple petitions before various forums regarding the

…

## Facts

Mrs. Manisha Nimesh Mehta, promoter and guarantor of M/s. Perfect Infraengineers Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging orders of NCLT-1, Mumbai. The petitioner claims ICICI Bank wrongly classified the company's loan account as NPA in July 2020 with retrospective effect from February 29, 2020, denying COVID-19 moratorium benefits. ICICI Bank invoked Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, taking symbolic possession of the petitioner's property. The petitioner claims to have sold factory and office premises, paying Rs.5.50 Crores against dues of Rs.9.50 Crores, clearing 55% of the amount. ICICI Bank allegedly approached TDB to credit the third tranche of the TDBI Loan to ICICI Bank instead of the Bank of India account, acting mala fide to prevent the petitioner from receiving

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the NCLT-1, Mumbai orders dated 15th July, …

**Ratio:** The Hon'ble Supreme Court has crystallized that even the non-payment of a part of the

…

**Reasoning:** The court finds no illegality or error in the order dated 29th October, 2024, passed by

…

**Interpretation:** The court interprets the law to mean that even non-payment of a part of the

…

**Application:** The court applies the ratio to the facts of the case and concludes that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ravindra V.…; Ashwin D.…
- **Appellants:** Manisha Nimesh…
- **Respondents:** Perfect Infraengin…; TECHNOLOGY…
- **Other parties:** Kohi…

## Timeline

- **2024-11-12 — Bench Ref…**: The Bench (Coram : A.S. Chandurkar & Rajesh Patil, JJ.), referred to the order dated 18th…
- **2024-11-13 — Bench Rec…**: The Bench (Coram: M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Shantilal Jain, JJ), recorded that the matter…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 3 — Definitions](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-3)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/manisha-nimesh-mehta-vs-technology-development-board-7528f888