# In the matter of Shankar Kashid vs. Intec Capital Limited and Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-05-02. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00053. The appeal was filed by Shankar Kashid, the suspended director of Shivani Flexipack Limited,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 2 May 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00053
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/shankar-kashid-vs-intec-capital-limited-and-ors-3fb7a52e

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed by Shankar Kashid, the suspended director of Shivani Flexipack Limited, challenging the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which admitted the Corporate Debtor into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The CIRP was initiated based on an application filed by Intec Capital Limited, the Financial Creditor, due to defaults in loan repayment. The loan was taken by Shivani Flexipack Limited for purchasing machinery from Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited. Disputes arose regarding the disbursement of the loan, non-delivery of machinery, and the ban on Gutkha/Pan Masala products, which impacted the Corporate Debtor's business.

## Facts

Shivani Flexipack Limited (Corporate Debtor) took a loan of Rs. 1,66,40,134 from Intec Capital Limited (Financial Creditor) to purchase lamination machines from Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited. A loan agreement was formalized on 18.01.2012. The Corporate Debtor was engaged in manufacturing flexible packaging materials, including printed pouches for Gutkha/Pan-Masala/Tobacco products. The loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments. The Corporate Debtor provided post-dated cheques and collateral as security. The Financial Creditor disbursed Rs. 45,00,110 directly to the Corporate Debtor and Rs. 1,21,40,024 to the machinery vendor. A ban on Gutkha/Pan Masala products in July 2012 impacted the Corporate Debtor's business. The Corporate Debtor requested

…

## Issues and analysis

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

**Ratio:** The sole criterion for admission of an application under Section 7 of the IBC is the

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the Corporate Debtor had defaulted in repayment of the loan, and

…

**Interpretation:** Section 7 of the IBC allows a financial creditor to initiate CIRP against a

…

**Application:** In this case, the NCLAT found that there was a financial debt exceeding Rs. 1

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rakesh Kuma…; Naresh Sa…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Shankar K…
- **Respondents:** Shivani Flexipack…; Intec Capital…

## Timeline

- **2011-11-18 — Sanction…**: Intec Capital Limited issued a sanction letter for a loan of Rs. 1,66,40,134 to Shivani…
- **2012-01-18 — Loan Agre…**: A formal loan agreement was executed between Intec Capital Limited and Shivani Flexipack…

## 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/shankar-kashid-vs-intec-capital-limited-and-ors-3fb7a52e