# In the matter of Rahul Sayal Vs. S.S Conbuild Pvt. Ltd. CA(AT)(Ins)No. 221 of 2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-12-04. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00055. The Appellant, Rahul Sayal, a financial creditor, filed an application under Section 7 of the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 4 Dec 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00055
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rahul-sayal-vs-ss-conbuild-pvt-ltd-ca-1c491d83

## Summary

### Background

The Appellant, Rahul Sayal, a financial creditor, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against S.S. Conbuild Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench-II, rejected the application via an order dated January 24, 2019, leading to the present appeal.

## Facts

Rahul Sayal, the Appellant and a financial creditor, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against S.S. Conbuild Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant claimed that Rs.1,21,26,500/- was due despite reminders. The Respondent contended that the principal amount of Rs.90,12,000/- had been paid back to the Appellant, and no amount was due. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the Respondent paid Rs.15,00,000/- on May 20, 2015, and Rs.45,00,000/- through three cheques in July and November 2015. After the application was filed, the Respondent paid Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.11,00,000/-, and Rs.91,14,500/- back to the Appellant. The Appellant sought cancellation of the allotment and return of the amount. The Adjudicating Authority

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was …

**Ratio:** An application under Section 7 is not maintainable if the applicant seeks a return of the

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Appellant sought a return of the amount paid for the

…

**Interpretation:** This interprets Section 7 of the IBC to imply that the intent of the applicant

…

**Application:** In this case, the Appellant's primary intention was to recover the amount paid

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Rahul S…
- **Respondents:** S.S. Conbuild…
- **Advocates:** Ashish Dh…; Saurabh D. Karan…

## Timeline

- **2015-05-20 — Payment by Re…**: The Respondent paid…
- **2015-07-14 — Payment by Re…**: The Respondent paid a sum to the…

## 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/rahul-sayal-vs-ss-conbuild-pvt-ltd-ca-1c491d83