Defective Affidavits as Curable Irregularities and Mandatory Notice under Section 7(5)(b) IBC: Commentary on Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt Ltd v. HDFC Bank Ltd

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in Livein Aqua Solutions Private Limited v. HDFC Bank Limited, 2025 INSC 1349 (decided on 24 November 2025), has clarified two important facets of insolvency procedure under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC):

• Whether a Section 7 IBC application supported by a defective affidavit is non est (void in the eyes of law) and liable to be rejected at the threshold; and
• What is the mandatory procedural requirement for rejection of an incomplete or defective Section 7 application in light of the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) IBC.

The Court, speaking through Sanjay Kumar J (with Alok Aradhe J concurring), held that:

1. A defective affidavit supporting a Section 7 application is a curable procedural defect, not a jurisdictional or fundamental defect rendering the application non est; and
2. Before rejecting a Section 7 application as incomplete or defective, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) must issue a specific notice under the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) to the applicant to cure the defects. A generic, registry-level defect notice under the NCLT Rules is not sufficient.

In doing so, the Court reinforced the principle that procedural rules are handmaidens of justice and cannot be used oppressively to defeat substantive rights, particularly in a special, remedial legislation like the IBC.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

2.1 The parties and the underlying transaction

• Appellant (Corporate Debtor): Livein Aqua Solutions Private Limited (the company)
• Respondent (Financial Creditor): HDFC Bank Limited (the bank)

The company availed a loan facility of approximately ₹5.5 crores from HDFC Bank. The loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 4 August 2019 (para 3).

2.2 Filing of the Section 7 IBC application

The bank filed an application under Section 7 IBC to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the company:

• The application was in Form 1 prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, as required by Rule 4(1) of those Rules (para 3).
• Form 1 itself does not require an affidavit to be filed along with the application (para 4).
• However, the NCLT Rules, 2016, specifically Rule 34(4), require that every petition or application before the NCLT must be verified by an affidavit in Form NCLT.6.
• The bank’s Section 7 application was verified on 26.07.2023, but the supporting affidavit had been sworn earlier on 17.07.2023 (para 1). The affidavit was treated as “defective”.

The core procedural controversy arises from this alleged defect in the verification affidavit.

2.3 Registry objections and Registrar’s orders under the NCLT Rules

The NCLT Registry scrutinised the application in terms of Rule 28 NCLT Rules (paras 5, 7, 14):

• The scrutiny section identified defects in several petitions, including the bank’s Section 7 application.
• On 10 October 2023, the Joint Registrar issued a consolidated notice in respect of 26 defective petitions/applications (para 7):
  • Calling upon all concerned to remove the defects within 7 days,
  • Warning that failure would result in action under Rule 28(3).
  • The notice was not issued individually; it was displayed on the NCLT’s website and notice board.
• The bank did not refile or cure defects within this time.
• On 18 October 2023, the Joint Registrar, invoking Rule 28(4), declined to register 42 defective matters, including the bank’s application (para 7, 14). This order too was a generic order with an annexed list of cases.

2.4 Appeal before the NCLT under Rule 63 and subsequent developments

The bank filed Appeal No. 4 of 2024 under Rule 63 NCLT Rules, which permits an appeal against the Registrar’s decisions on scrutiny (para 8). The NCLT:

• Allowed the appeal on 8 February 2024;
• Set aside the Registrar’s order dated 18.10.2023;
• Gave the bank another seven days to cure defects, subject to costs (para 8).

The company challenged this order before the NCLAT in CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 770–771 of 2024. These appeals were later dismissed as infructuous on 15 July 2024, because:

• In the meantime, on 18 June 2024, the NCLT itself rejected the bank’s Section 7 application on the ground that defects remained unrectified (para 9).

2.5 NCLAT’s decision on rejection of the Section 7 application

Aggrieved by the rejection of its Section 7 application on 18.06.2024, the bank filed an appeal, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1534 of 2024, before the NCLAT (para 2).

Before the NCLAT:

• The bank accepted that its application was defective but argued that the defect was curable by filing a proper or better affidavit (para 10).
• The company argued that the very filing of the application was non est (void) as it was not in compliance with Rule 10(1) NCLT Rules, which refers to following certain procedural rules for IBC filings “till such time rules of procedure ... are notified” (para 10).

The NCLAT:

• Held that the NCLT had failed to comply with the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) IBC, which mandates a notice to the applicant to rectify defects before rejection (para 11).
• Relied on Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivakumar Reddy¹ to hold that a defective affidavit does not render a Section 7 application non est and that the defect is curable.
• Allowed the appeal, and restored the Section 7 application to its original number.
• Remanded the matter to NCLT for decision on merits, but without directing that the defective affidavit be cured (para 11).

2.6 Appeal before the Supreme Court

The company filed a civil appeal under Section 62 IBC to the Supreme Court (para 2). On 15.09.2025, the Court stayed further proceedings before the NCLT (para 12).

The Supreme Court confined itself strictly to the procedural issues and did not examine the merits of the financial creditor’s claim (para 3).

---

3. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s holding can be summarised under three core propositions:

3.1 Defective affidavit does not render Section 7 application non est

• The Court rejected the corporate debtor’s contention that a Section 7 application accompanied by a defective affidavit is non est and liable to be rejected outright (para 17).
• It held that such a defect is neither incurable nor fundamental and does not nullify the application itself (para 17).
• The Court expressly treated the defect as a curable procedural irregularity that cannot justify dismissal of the application without opportunity to cure.

3.2 Mandatory nature of notice under the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) IBC

• The Court held that no valid notice under the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) had been issued to the bank (paras 13–16, 19).
• Generic, registry-level notices:
  • Issued by the Joint Registrar in a consolidated form for multiple matters,
  • Displayed on the website and notice board,
  • Grounded only in Rule 28 NCLT Rules,
  • Do not satisfy the statutory mandate of the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) IBC.
• A specific statutory notice must be issued under the IBC provision itself, addressed to the applicant (or served as per Rule 38 NCLT Rules), asking it to rectify defects within 7 days of receipt of such notice.
• Compliance with NCLT procedural rules alone cannot substitute for compliance with the IBC’s substantive requirement (para 16, 19).

3.3 Modification of the NCLAT’s relief

• The Supreme Court agreed with the NCLAT that:
  • The NCLT’s rejection was unsustainable due to non-compliance with Section 7(5)(b) proviso; and
  • A defective affidavit does not render the application non est (para 19).
• However, the Court held that the NCLAT erred in restoring the petition for hearing on merits without insisting on curing the defective affidavit (para 19).
• Accordingly, the Supreme Court:
  • Directed the bank to cure all defects, including the defective affidavit, within seven days from the date of judgment (para 20); and
  • Directed the NCLT, Ahmedabad, to thereafter hear the matter on merits in accordance with law and due procedure (para 20).
  • The appeal was disposed of with parties bearing their own costs (para 20).

  ---

  4. Statutory Framework and Precedents

  4.1 Key statutory provisions and rules

  4.1.1 Section 7 IBC

  Section 7 provides for initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor. The relevant sub-clause is:

  • Section 7(5)(b): empowers the NCLT to reject a Section 7 application if it is incomplete.
  • Proviso to Section 7(5)(b): mandates that before rejecting the application as incomplete, the NCLT shall:
    • Give notice to the applicant;
    • Allow 7 days from receipt of such notice to rectify the defect.

  4.1.2 IBC (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016

  • Rule 4(1):
    • A financial creditor must file a Section 7 application in Form 1 along with required documents and records.
    • Form 1 does not require an affidavit in terms of the IBC Application Rules themselves (para 4).

  4.1.3 NCLT Rules, 2016

  These are procedural rules governing all matters before the NCLT, including insolvency applications, subject to the IBC.

  • Rule 34(4) (General Procedure, Part IV):
    • States that every petition or application shall be verified by an affidavit in Form NCLT.6.
  • Rule 28 (Scrutiny of petitions/appeals/applications):
    • Rule 28(1): Registry receives the filing, assigns a diary number, and sends it for scrutiny.
    • Rule 28(2): If defective, it is returned for compliance; if not complied within 7 days, Registrar may pass orders.
    • Rule 28(3): Registrar may return a document for rectification with such time as deemed fit.
    • Rule 28(4): If defects are not removed within time, Registrar may decline to register the pleading/document, recording reasons.
  • Rule 38(5) (Service of notices and processes):
    • Permits service of notice on an authorised representative of the party, which is deemed proper service (para 15).
  • Rule 63 (Appeal from Registrar’s order):
    • Allows an aggrieved person to appeal a Registrar’s scrutiny decision to the President or a designated Member, whose decision is final (para 8).
  • Rule 10(1):
    • Provides that, until specific procedural rules for IBC are notified, Section 7 applications shall be filed in accordance with certain rules in Part III of the NCLT Rules (para 10).
    • The company relied on this to argue non-compliance bordering on non est filing.

  4.2 Precedents cited

  4.2.1 Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivakumar Reddy¹

  In Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy, (2021) 10 SCC 330, the Supreme Court interpreted the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) IBC. The Court in Livein Aqua quoted para 91 (para 16 here), where it was held:

  • The adjudicating authority is obliged under the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) to:
    • Give notice to the applicant;
    • Call upon the applicant to rectify defects within 7 days.
  • There is no penalty prescribed for inability to cure defects within 7 days.
  • In an appropriate case, the NCLT may accept a cured application even after expiry of 7 days, “for the ends of justice”.

  Thus, Dena Bank establishes that:

  • The issuance of a notice to cure defects is mandatory.
  • The 7-day period is directory, not rigidly mandatory.
  • Rejection without giving opportunity to cure is contrary to the statute.

  In the present case, this precedent directly underpins:

  • The conclusion that NCLT erred by rejecting the Section 7 application without issuing a proper statutory notice under Section 7(5)(b); and
  • The understanding that procedural time limits for curing defects must be approached flexibly to advance justice, especially in insolvency proceedings.

  4.2.2 Vidyawati Gupta v. Bhakti Hari Nayak²

  In Vidyawati Gupta v. Bhakti Hari Nayak, (2006) 2 SCC 777, the Supreme Court emphasised that rules of procedure exist to serve justice, not to obstruct it. The Court in Livein Aqua (para 18) adopted this dictum to reinforce that:

  • Procedural prescriptions should be interpreted liberally when strict compliance would cause injustice;
  • Courts must avoid an “over-technical” approach when it leads to failure of substantive justice or denial of legitimate relief.

  4.2.3 Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh³

  In Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75, the Supreme Court clarified:

  • Non-compliance with procedural requirements in an application should not automatically lead to dismissal, unless the statute or rule expressly mandates such a consequence (para 18).
  • Curable procedural defects and irregularities should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or cause injustice.
  • Procedure, being a handmaiden of justice, must not be used oppressively or punitively.

  This reasoning is directly invoked in the present case (para 18) to support the proposition that:

  • A defective affidavit is precisely the kind of curable procedural defect that should not extinguish a financial creditor’s substantive right to seek initiation of CIRP.

  ---

  5. Detailed Legal Analysis

  5.1 The central issue: Does a defective affidavit invalidate the Section 7 application?

  The company’s principal argument was that, due to a defective verification affidavit, the Section 7 application was non est (as if never properly filed). It sought to elevate the defect from a mere irregularity to a jurisdictional nullity.

  The Supreme Court rejected this for several reasons:

  5.1.1 Distinction between absence of affidavit and a defective affidavit

  • Form 1 under the IBC Application Rules does not itself require an affidavit (para 4). The affidavit requirement arises from Rule 34(4) NCLT Rules, a procedural rule of the Tribunal.
  • Thus, the core of the Section 7 application under the IBC does not inherently depend on an affidavit; the affidavit is an ancillary procedural requirement for verification.
  • Even assuming the affidavit to be defective (e.g., wrong date, form, or content), the application itself remained on record with all substantive particulars and documents.

  This distinction is critical: a filing accompanied by a flawed procedural step is not equivalent to no filing at all. The Court expressly notes that a defective affidavit does not render the application non est (para 17).

  5.1.2 The company’s own description of the defect

  The Court also drew attention to the company’s own pleadings (para 17):

  • In its additional affidavit dated 02.04.2024 before the NCLT, the company had itself described the petition as “defective”.
  • Only later, before the NCLAT and Supreme Court, did it escalate the argument to say the application was “non est”.

  This inconsistency weakened the company’s stand and supported the view that even the opponent treated it as a procedural defect, not a total nullity.

  5.1.3 Application of general principles on procedural defects

  Relying on Vidyawati Gupta and Uday Shankar Triyar (para 18), the Court reaffirmed that:

  • Procedural rules should advance, not defeat, substantive justice;
  • Curable irregularities must not be permitted to ground draconian consequences such as outright rejection of a claim;
  • Only where the statute unequivocally mandates dismissal for a particular defect should such dismissal follow as a matter of course.

  There is no provision either in the IBC or the NCLT Rules that says a Section 7 application must be dismissed as non est solely because the accompanying affidavit is defective. Therefore, characterising the defect as incurable and jurisdictional was inconsistent with both statutory text and binding precedent.

  5.2 The interplay between the IBC and NCLT Rules: Which prevails?

  A key conceptual thread in the judgment is the relationship between the substantive IBC and the procedural NCLT Rules.

  • The IBC is a code in itself governing insolvency and bankruptcy, including how and when CIRP can be initiated.
  • NCLT Rules are framed to regulate the procedure of the Tribunal across various jurisdictions (company law, IBC, etc.).

  The Court takes the clear stance that:

  • Where there is a specific requirement in the IBC (e.g., the proviso to Section 7(5)(b)), compliance with that substantive requirement is mandatory.
  • Compliance merely with the NCLT’s internal procedural framework (Rule 28 scrutiny, registry notices, etc.) does not discharge the obligation imposed by the IBC (para 16, 19).

  Thus, in case of any overlap or tension:

  • The IBC’s specific statutory mandate prevails over general procedural practice;
  • NCLT Rules cannot be used to circumvent, dilute or replace the safeguards and structure laid down in the IBC.

  5.3 What constitutes proper notice under the proviso to Section 7(5)(b)?

  5.3.1 Nature and object of the proviso

  The proviso to Section 7(5)(b) is a fairness safeguard:

  • Before rejecting a financial creditor’s application as incomplete, the NCLT must tell the creditor what is wrong and give it an opportunity to set things right.
  • Only after this opportunity is given and either:
    • the defect is not cured; or
    • the defect is incurable and goes to the root,
    can the application be rejected as incomplete.

  This design reflects a legislative intent not to allow technicalities to prematurely scuttle insolvency proceedings, which have serious commercial and systemic implications.

  5.3.2 Why the NCLT’s consolidated registry notices were insufficient

  In this case, the NCLT Registry issued:

  • A generic notice on 10.10.2023 listing 26 defective matters, including the bank’s application (para 7, 13); and
  • A generic order on 18.10.2023 declining to register 42 matters, again listed in an annexure (para 14).

  Both were:

  • Grounded purely in Rule 28 NCLT Rules (registry scrutiny);
  • Published on the website and notice board, forming part of the cause list/notice circulars;
  • Not explicitly framed as notices under Section 7(5)(b) proviso;
  • Not specifically served on the applicant as such.

  The Supreme Court held (paras 13–16, 19):

  • There was no notice issued to the bank under the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) at any point in time.
  • The requirement under the proviso that notice be given to the applicant itself (with service permissible on its authorised representative under Rule 38(5)) was not fulfilled.
  • Therefore, the rejection of the application was procedurally unsustainable.

  In effect, the Court reads the proviso to require:

  1. A clear, specific, statutory notice, issued in the context of Section 7(5)(b), indicating that:
     • The application is incomplete or defective;
     • The nature of the defects; and
     • The applicant is being granted 7 days (or such time as may be extended) from receipt of such notice to cure them.
  2. Service in accordance with Rule 38 NCLT Rules (including service on authorised representative), but not merely constructive or inferential knowledge from a website list.

  This approach is consistent with Dena Bank, which underscores the obligation to give a meaningful opportunity to cure, and with the principles in Uday Shankar Triyar, rejecting oppressive use of procedure.

  5.3.3 Effect of non-compliance with the proviso

  As a direct consequence of the failure to comply with the proviso:

  • The rejection of the bank’s Section 7 application was held to be vitiated (para 19).
  • The NCLAT’s decision to set aside the rejection on this ground was affirmed.

  This strengthens the proposition that non-compliance with the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) is a serious procedural irregularity that can undo a rejection order.

  5.4 Curable versus incurable defects: The Court’s categorisation

  The Court implicitly categorises defects into:

  • Curable (procedural) defects:
    • Defective affidavit;
    • Formal or technical improperities in verification or format;
    • Mistakes that can be rectified without changing the nature of the claim or cause of action.
  • Potentially incurable (substantive) defects:
    • Absence of a cause of action;
    • Lack of jurisdiction;
    • Filing outside limitation without any basis for extension or acknowledgment;
    • Failure to meet statutory pre-conditions that go to the root of the right to apply.

  The defect here — a procedural irregularity in the supporting affidavit — clearly fell in the first category. Therefore:

  • The correct course was to permit rectification, not to treat the application as non est.
  • Section 7(5)(b) proviso precisely encapsulates this philosophy in the insolvency context.

  5.5 Partial affirmation and partial correction of the NCLAT’s approach

  The Supreme Court’s final directions strike a balance between:

  • Correcting the NCLT’s error of rejecting the application without proper notice under Section 7(5)(b), and
  • Correcting the NCLAT’s oversight in ignoring the continuing existence of a defective affidavit.

  Thus:

  • The NCLAT was correct:
    • That the failure to issue proper notice under Section 7(5)(b) made the rejection unsustainable;
    • That a defective affidavit does not render the application non est.
  • The NCLAT was incorrect in straightaway restoring the petition for hearing on merits without first insisting on the affidavit being cured (para 19).

  The Supreme Court, therefore, directed a middle course:

  1. The bank must cure all defects, including the defective affidavit, within 7 days of the Supreme Court’s judgment (para 20);
  2. Only then is the NCLT to proceed to hear the matter on merits.

  ---

  6. Complex Concepts Simplified

  6.1 “Non est” filing

  The Latin expression non est (short for non est factum or more broadly “does not exist”) is used in procedural law to mean:

  • A filing that is so fundamentally defective that, in the eyes of the law, it is treated as no filing at all;
  • Such a filing ordinarily cannot be cured because the defect goes to the existence of the proceeding, not its form.

  The company attempted to categorise the bank’s application as non est because of the defective affidavit. The Court held that this was incorrect: the application was a validly instituted proceeding, though accompanied by a curable procedural defect.

  6.2 Adjudicating authority versus Registry/Registrar

  Under the IBC:

  • The NCLT acts as the “adjudicating authority” for corporate insolvency matters.
  • Registry/Registrar functions (scrutiny, diary numbering, defect pointing) are administrative and governed by NCLT Rules (e.g., Rule 28, Rule 63).

  The proviso to Section 7(5)(b) is addressed to the adjudicating authority, i.e., the NCLT in its judicial capacity, not merely as a registry:

  • It is the NCLT Judge/Bench who must ensure a statutory notice is given, not just the Registrar applying Rule 28 generically.
  • Administrative notices from the registry cannot replace the judicial obligation imposed by the IBC provision.

  6.3 Curable versus incurable defects

  A curable defect is one which:

  • Relates to form, manner, or procedure, not to the substantive right or jurisdiction;
  • Can be corrected without fundamentally altering the basis of the claim or the nature of the proceeding;
  • Is generally remediable by filing additional documents, correcting formats, or re-verifying on affidavit.

  An incurable defect generally:

  • Goes to the root of jurisdiction (e.g., the tribunal has no jurisdiction at all); or
  • Destroys the very basis of the claim (e.g., statutory pre-condition not satisfied, filing hopelessly time-barred without any legal basis to extend time).

  The Court placed the defective affidavit firmly in the curable category and thereby brought it within the scope of the remedial mechanism of Section 7(5)(b) proviso.

  6.4 The seven-day period under Section 7(5)(b): Mandatory or directory?

  Following Dena Bank (quoted at para 16), the Court’s understanding is:

  • Issuance of a notice to cure defects is mandatory;
  • The time period of seven days is directory, not rigidly mandatory:
    • There is no statutory penalty for failing to cure within seven days;
    • The NCLT can, in an appropriate case, accept rectification after seven days “for the ends of justice”.

  In Livein Aqua, the Supreme Court itself gave the bank 7 days from the date of judgment to cure defects, consistent with this flexible approach (para 20).

  ---

  7. Impact and Practical Significance

  7.1 For financial creditors filing Section 7 applications

  • Financial creditors are reassured that:
    • Minor or technical defects in supporting affidavits will not by themselves render their applications void or non est.
    • They are legally entitled to an opportunity to cure defects before their application is rejected as incomplete.
  • At the same time, creditors must:
    • Exercise diligence in complying with both IBC Application Rules and NCLT Rules (including filing proper affidavits per Rule 34(4));
    • Respond promptly to any defect notice issued under Section 7(5)(b).

  7.2 For corporate debtors opposing Section 7 applications

  • Corporate debtors cannot exploit minor procedural lapses (like an imperfect affidavit) as a ground to argue that the application is non est.
  • They remain free to:
    • Point out defects and insist that the application not proceed unless rectified; and
    • Challenge failure to comply with mandatory requirements that are truly jurisdictional or substantive.
    • However, they cannot seek outright rejection solely on curable procedural grounds, particularly without the NCLT having first followed Section 7(5)(b) proviso.

    7.3 For the NCLT and its Registry

    The judgment has important institutional implications:

    • Registry practice:
      • Generic lists of defective matters and mass orders under Rule 28, hosted on the website or notice board, cannot be treated as compliance with the proviso to Section 7(5)(b).
      • The Registry must coordinate with the Benches to ensure that:
        • Where a Section 7 application is incomplete or defective,
        • A specific statutory notice under Section 7(5)(b) is issued to the applicant or its authorised representative.
    • NCLT Benches:
      • Must treat the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) as a mandatory step before rejecting a Section 7 application as incomplete.
      • Need to distinguish between:
        • Curable defects (where notice and opportunity to cure are imperative); and
        • Truly incurable or jurisdictional defects.
      • Should adopt a justice-oriented approach to the seven-day cure period, consistent with Dena Bank and this judgment.

    7.4 For insolvency jurisprudence more broadly

    The decision reinforces several systemic themes in IBC jurisprudence:

    • Balance between speed and fairness:
      • The IBC aims for time-bound resolution, but this cannot come at the cost of basic procedural fairness.
      • The proviso to Section 7(5)(b) is a statutory expression of this balance.
    • Primacy of substantive statute over procedural rules:
      • NCLT Rules are subordinate; they cannot override the IBC’s express mandates.
      • This preserves coherence and predictability in the insolvency framework.
    • Discouragement of hyper-technical objections:
      • The Court’s rejection of the “non est” argument sends a clear signal against strategic use of technical defects to stall CIRP.

    ---

    8. Conclusion

    Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt Ltd v. HDFC Bank Ltd is a significant contribution to IBC procedural jurisprudence. The ruling crystallises two key principles:

    1. A Section 7 IBC application filed in the correct statutory form but accompanied by a defective supporting affidavit is not non est. Such a defect is a curable procedural irregularity, not a ground for outright rejection in the absence of an opportunity to cure.
    2. The proviso to Section 7(5)(b) imposes a mandatory obligation on the NCLT to issue a specific notice to the applicant, calling upon it to rectify defects in its application within seven days of receipt of such notice, before the application can be rejected as incomplete. Compliance with internal NCLT Rules (like Rule 28) cannot substitute for this statutory requirement.

    By reaffirming that procedure is a servant, not the master, of justice, and by insisting on fidelity to the text and purpose of the IBC, the Court ensures that insolvency proceedings are conducted with both efficiency and fairness. Financial creditors gain protection against dismissal on trivial technicalities, while corporate debtors retain the right to be subjected only to applications that meet minimum procedural standards, properly enforced through the statutory mechanism of Section 7(5)(b).

    The judgment will likely guide future NCLT and NCLAT practice in handling defective IBC applications, harmonising procedural rigor with the overarching objective of timely and just resolution of corporate insolvency.

    ---

    References

    1. Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivakumar Reddy, (2021) 10 SCC 330.
    2. Vidyawati Gupta v. Bhakti Hari Nayak, (2006) 2 SCC 777.
    3. Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75.