# 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-00237. 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-00237
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/dr-naveen-chaudhuri-vs-suraksha-asset-and-anr-ca-a40d8143

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench, which admitted an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appellant, who is the director of the corporate debtor, M/s. Noida Medicate Centre Ltd., contested the admission of the application filed by the respondent, Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Limited, the financial creditor. The financial creditor claimed that the corporate debtor had defaulted on credit facilities obtained from Kotak Mahindra Bank, leading to the account becoming a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

## Facts

Dr. Naveen Chaudhari, the appellant, is the director of the corporate debtor, M/s. Noida Medicate Centre Ltd. Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Limited, the respondent, is the financial creditor. The corporate debtor obtained credit facilities from Kotak Mahindra Bank, and the account became an NPA on June 30, 2016. Kotak Mahindra Bank assigned its debts of five accounts of the corporate debtor to the financial creditor via an Assignment Deed dated September 29, 2017. The financial creditor filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC, which was admitted by the NCLT. The appellant claims that a restructuring agreement was in place and that the corporate debtor paid Rs. 1.17 Crores against the outstanding dues and Rs. 33.50 Lakhs for processing fees. The financial

…

## 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 NCLAT reasoned that the core issue was the existence of a financial debt and a

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation focuses on the primacy of the Assignment Deed in

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the facts by acknowledging the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; A.B. S…; +1 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 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

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-a40d8143