# In the matter of M/s. Vrundavan Residency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Mars Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 345 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-03-04. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00600. The appeal arises from an order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 4 Mar 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00600
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ms-vrundavan-residency-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-mars-remedies-pvt-ltd-company-appeal-453a8b78

## Summary

### Background

The appeal arises from an order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, in C.P.(IB) No. 300/NCLT/AHM/2020. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) filed by the Appellant, Vrundavan Residency Pvt. Ltd., on the grounds that the debt was time-barred. The Appellant, a financial creditor, had provided an unsecured loan to the Corporate Debtor, Mars Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

## Facts

Vrundavan Residency Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant), a financial creditor engaged in hostel services, provided an unsecured loan to Mars Remedies Pvt. Ltd. (the Corporate Debtor). A board resolution dated 19.04.2011 sanctioned an amount not exceeding Rs. 70,00,000/-. The Appellant disbursed a total of Rs. 68,10,000/- on various dates between 30.06.2011 and 27.02.2015. The Corporate Debtor defaulted on repaying the loan, with a calculation sheet from 2017-2019 showing a default of Rs. 89,24,630/- (principal plus interest). The default continued from 31.03.2017 to 31.12.2019. On 20.02.2020, the Appellant filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the grounds that the petition was time-barred. The Appellant argued that

…

## Issues and analysis

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

**Ratio:** The principle is that the Adjudicating Authority must consider all relevant documents and

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority did not adequately consider the financial

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that the Adjudicating Authority has a duty to thoroughly

…

**Application:** In this case, the NCLAT applied the principle by setting aside the order of the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Anant Bijay…; Shreesha…
- **Appellants:** M/s. Vrundavan…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Mars…
- **Advocates:** Aastha…; Ravi P…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2011-04-19 — Board Reso…**: Board Resolution sanctioning an…
- **2011-06-30 — Disburse…**: Rs. 5,00,000/- disbursed…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/ms-vrundavan-residency-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-mars-remedies-pvt-ltd-company-appeal-453a8b78