# In the matter of Dr. Naveen Chaudhuri Vs. Suraksha Asset and Anr. CA(AT)(Ins)No. 529 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-06-08. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00239. The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 8 Jun 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00239
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/dr-naveen-chaudhuri-vs-suraksha-asset-and-anr-ca-95eec785

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench, regarding an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appellant, Dr. Naveen Chaudhari, is the Director of the Corporate Debtor, Noida Medicate Centre Ltd. The respondent, Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Limited, filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC against the Corporate Debtor, which was admitted by the NCLT. The Corporate Debtor had obtained credit facilities from Kotak Mahindra Bank, and the account became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Kotak Mahindra Bank assigned its debts to the respondent. A restructuring agreement was executed between the Corporate Debtor and Kotak Mahindra Bank, but disputes arose

…

## Facts

Dr. Naveen Chaudhari, the appellant, is the Director of Noida Medicate Centre Ltd, the Corporate Debtor. Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Limited, the respondent, is the financial creditor. The Corporate Debtor obtained credit facilities from Kotak Mahindra Bank, and the account became NPA on June 30, 2016. Kotak Mahindra Bank assigned its debts of five accounts of the Corporate Debtor to the respondent via an Assignment Deed dated September 29, 2017. A restructuring agreement was executed between the Corporate Debtor and Kotak Mahindra Bank. The Financial Creditor claimed dues of Rs. 9 Crores as per the Assignment Deed. The application under Section 7 of the IBC was filed on July 16, 2019. The Corporate Debtor paid Rs. 1.17 Crores against the outstanding dues and Rs.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting the application under Section 7 of the …

**Ratio:** The financial debt of Kotak Mahindra Bank was outstanding, and the original applicant

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the assignment of debt from Kotak Mahindra Bank to the respondent

…

**Interpretation:** Section 7 of the IBC allows a financial creditor to initiate the corporate

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts by noting that the debt was assigned

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; A.B. S…; +2 more
- **Appellants:** Naveen Cha…
- **Respondents:** Noida Medicare…; Suraksha Asset…

## Timeline

- **2015-01-01 — Loan Tak…**: Loan was taken from…
- **2016-06-30 — Account Beco…**: The account became a…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 55 — Fast track corporation insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-55)

---

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/nclat-new-delhi/dr-naveen-chaudhuri-vs-suraksha-asset-and-anr-ca-95eec785