# Deepak Raheja and Another vs. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd. and Another

> SC judgment dated 2026-10-15. Citation: TCN-2026-SC-00114. The case involves two statutory appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,…

- **Court:** SC
- **Order date:** 15 Oct 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-SC-00114
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/deepak-raheja-and-another-vs-omkara-assets-reconstructi-o9lc2

## Summary

### Background

The case involves two statutory appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) challenging a common judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The NCLAT had affirmed National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) orders admitting Section 7 IBC petitions against GSTAAD Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Neo Capricorn Plaza Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtors) and initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The dispute arose from defaults on term loans and Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) facilities, which were assigned by Piramal Finance Ltd. to Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (Financial Creditor). The Corporate Debtors contested the assignment's validity and the existence/curability of default, citing issues with a

…

## Facts

Piramal Finance Ltd. (PCHFL) extended a Rs.600 crore term loan facility to GSTAAD Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) and Neo Capricorn Plaza Pvt. Ltd. (Neo) as co-borrowers on 26.12.2017.

A Cash Management Agreement (CMA) was executed in January 2018, detailing revenue distribution for debt servicing.

The Loan Agreement mandated a Debt Service Reserve Account (DSRA) of Rs.8 crores for the Corporate Debtor and Rs.2 crores for Neo, with Rs.3 crores remaining undisbursed as of 15.11.2022.

The Corporate Debtor and Neo also availed facilities under the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS).

On 27.12.2022, PCHFL and PHL Fininvest Pvt. Ltd. assigned the loans and ECLGS facilities to Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (Financial Creditor).

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the evidentiary threshold required to satisfy the Adjudicating Authority that a …

**Ratio:** The evidentiary threshold for ascertaining default under Section 7 is a summary, prima

…

**Reasoning:** Section 7's architecture, including the 14-day period, aims for time-bound resolution.

…

**Interpretation:** Section 3(12) defines 'default' as non-payment of debt when "whole or any

…

**Application:** In the present case, the Corporate Debtor's defense centered on the curability

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** AUGUSTINE GEORGE…; DIPANKAR DA…
- **Appellants:** Deepak R…
- **Respondents:** GSTAAD HOTELS…; NEO CAPRICORN…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** Omkara Asset…

## Timeline

- **2017-12-26 — Loan Agreement…**: Piramal Finance Ltd. (PCHFL) extended a term loan facility aggregating Rs.600 crores to…
- **2017-12-28 — First Loan Dis…**: The first disbursement…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 62 — Appeal to Supreme Court](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-62)

---

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/supreme-court-of-india/deepak-raheja-and-another-vs-omkara-assets-reconstructi-o9lc2