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

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-05-02. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00055. 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-00055
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/shankar-kashid-vs-intec-capital-limited-ors-483f18c9

## 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) based on an application filed by Intec Capital Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The dispute arose from a loan facility extended by Intec Capital Limited to Shivani Flexipack Limited for purchasing machinery from Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited. The appellant argued that the NCLT failed to consider the complex transactional dynamics and alleged collusion between Intec Capital Limited and Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited, leading to an

…

## Facts

Shivani Flexipack Limited (Corporate Debtor) obtained a loan of Rs. 1,66,40,134 from Intec Capital Limited (Financial Creditor) to purchase lamination machines from Polygraph Printing Technologies Limited. The loan agreement was formalized on 18.01.2012, with a repayment schedule of 60 monthly installments. As security, Shivani Flexipack provided post-dated cheques and collateral. Intec Capital disbursed Rs. 45,00,110 directly to Shivani Flexipack and Rs. 1,21,40,024 to Polygraph Printing Technologies. Following a ban on Gutkha/Pan Masala products in July 2012, Shivani Flexipack requested changes in the machinery specifications. The Appellant (Shankar Kashid) claims that Intec Capital prematurely disbursed the entire loan amount in violation of the agreed terms.

…

## 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 admitting an application under Section 7 of the IBC is the

…

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

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 7 of the IBC, as clarified by the Supreme Court

…

**Application:** In this case, the NCLAT applied the ratio by confirming that a financial debt

…

## Parties

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

## Timeline

- **2011-11-18 — Sanction…**: Intec Capital Limited sanctioned a loan facility of Rs. 1,66,40,134 to Shivani Flexipack…
- **2012-01-18 — Loan Agre…**: Formal loan agreement 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-ors-483f18c9