# In the matter of Sh. Naveen Luthra & Ors. Vs Bell Finvest (India) Ltd. & Anr. CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 336, 07 & 10-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2018-11-29. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00044. The case involves three appeals regarding the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 29 Nov 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00044
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sh-naveen-luthra-ors-vs-bell-finvest-a2da9812

## Summary

### Background

The case involves three appeals regarding the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). Bell Finvest (India) Limited, the Financial Creditor, filed applications against Luthra Water Systems Private Limited, Avance Logistics & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., and Intercon Container & Survey & Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the applications against Luthra Water Systems and Avance Logistics but rejected the application against Intercon Container, holding the penal interest as 'usurious'. The appeals challenge these orders, primarily on the ground that the petitions are not maintainable due to 'usurious penal interest' in view of Section 3 of the

…

## Facts

Bell Finvest (India) Limited, the Financial Creditor, filed applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Luthra Water Systems Private Limited, M/s. Avance Logistics & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., and Intercon Container & Survey & Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the applications against Luthra Water Systems and Avance Logistics, while rejecting the application against Intercon Container due to 'usurious' penal interest. The Corporate Debtors challenged the admission orders, arguing that the petitions were not maintainable due to 'usurious penal interest' under Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918. The Financial Creditor claimed

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority can entertain or reject an application under Section 7 of the …

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority's role under Section 7 of the I&B Code is primarily to

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority's function is not to decide a money

…

**Interpretation:** The I&B Code aims for reorganization and insolvency resolution, not

…

**Application:** In the case of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 10 of 2018, the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Sh. Naveen…
- **Respondents:** Luthra Water…; Bell Finvest…
- **Advocates:** Arun Kath…; Chitranshul A.…; +9 more

## Timeline

- **2017-11-15 — Order by Adjudicating…**: Adjudicating Authority passed an order admitting the application against ‘M/s. Luthra…
- **2017-09-11 — Order by Adjudicating…**: Adjudicating Authority passed an order admitting the application against ‘M/s. Avance…

## 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/sh-naveen-luthra-ors-vs-bell-finvest-a2da9812