# In the matter of Parikshit Madanmohan Sharma vs. M.S. Gopikrishnan & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-01-24. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00673. The appeal was filed against an order dated 2023-02-08 by the Adjudicating Authority…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 24 Jan 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00673
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/parikshit-madanmohan-sharma-vs-ms-gopikrishnan-ors-9f2935f9

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed against an order dated 2023-02-08 by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai), which admitted an application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 filed by some home buyers against K.D. Lite Developers Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) for the initiation of CIRP. The IRP was appointed, and a moratorium was imposed. The appellant argued that the home buyers did not meet the threshold requirements under Section 7(1) of the IBC. The appellant also raised issues of threshold and limitation, which were not decided by the Tribunal. The appellant contended that the total number of home buyers is 209, requiring a threshold of 21, but the application was filed by fewer home buyers. The Tribunal only noticed Section 7(1)

…

## Facts

An application was filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 by some home buyers against K.D. Lite Developers Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) for the initiation of CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application, appointed an IRP, and imposed a moratorium. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the home buyers did not meet the threshold requirements under Section 7(1) of the IBC. The appellant contended that the total number of home buyers is 209, requiring a threshold of 21, but the application was filed by fewer home buyers. The appellant also raised issues of threshold and limitation, which were not decided by the Tribunal. The respondent argued that the appellant's contention regarding the total number of allottees was incorrect, stating that

…

## Issues and analysis

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

**Ratio:** Section 7(1) of the IBC requires that an application for initiation of CIRP by financial

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority failed to record a finding on whether

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 7(1) and the precedent set in Tiger Logistics

…

**Application:** In this case, the appellant argued that the home buyers did not meet the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rakesh Kuma…; Naresh Sa…
- **Appellants:** Parikshit…
- **Respondents:** K.D. Lite…; M.S. Gopikrishnan…

## Timeline

- **2023-02-08 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai) passed…
- **2024-01-24 — Appeal F…**: An appeal was filed against the order dated 2023-02-08 passed by the Adjudicating…

---

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/parikshit-madanmohan-sharma-vs-ms-gopikrishnan-ors-9f2935f9