# In the matter of Randhiraj Thakur Director, Mayfair Capital Private Limited Vs M/s Jindal Saxena Financial Services CA (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 32 & 50 -2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2018-09-18. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00115. This case involves an appeal against an order dated January 8, 2018, passed by the National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 18 Sept 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00115
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/randhiraj-thakur-director-mayfair-capital-private-limited-vs-ms-jindal-saxena-fi-583c4ffe

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal against an order dated January 8, 2018, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which rejected the appellant's application for recall. The appellant also sought to set aside an order dated June 27, 2017, passed by the NCLT, admitting an application filed by the 1st Respondent (Financial Creditor) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The appellant argued that the original order was passed without issuing notice to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and that ‘M/s. Mayfair Capital Pvt. Ltd.’ is a ‘financial service provider’ and a ‘Financial Sector Regulator’ and therefore, the application under Section 7 of the IBC was not maintainable.

## Facts

Randhiraj Thakur, Director of Mayfair Capital Private Limited, filed an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi. The NCLT had rejected Mayfair Capital's application for recall of an earlier order. The initial order, dated June 27, 2017, admitted an application filed by Jindal Saxena Financial Services Private Limited (the 1st Respondent) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. Mayfair Capital Private Limited is registered with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and operates as a non-banking financial institution. An ‘Inter Corporate Deposit Agreement' was reached between ‘M/s. Jindal Saxena financial Services Private Limited' (1st Respondent) and ‘M/s. Mayfair Capital Pvt. Ltd.' (2nd Respondent). The

…

## Issues and analysis

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

**Ratio:** The ratio is that financial service providers are excluded from the definition of

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the IBC is intended to consolidate and amend laws relating to

…

**Interpretation:** Section 3(7) of the IBC defines 'corporate person' but explicitly excludes any

…

**Application:** In this case, ‘M/s. Mayfair Capital Pvt. Ltd.’ is considered a 'financial

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Randhiraj…
- **Respondents:** Mayfair Capital…; M/s. Jindal…

## Timeline

- **2017-06-27 — Order by Adjudicating…**: Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Company Petition No. (IB)-84 (PB)/2017,…
- **2018-01-08 — Order by…**: Order dated 8th January, 2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi,…

## 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/randhiraj-thakur-director-mayfair-capital-private-limited-vs-ms-jindal-saxena-fi-583c4ffe