Case Details

  • Case Name: Raspalfa Services Private Limited vs Nishant Avinash Fadia & Anr.
  • Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
  • Case/Order No.: Civil Appeal No.7946/2026
  • Date of Order: 25 May 2026 (order signed by Justices J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan)
  • Period of Dispute: Pertains to a Section 7 insolvency application filed by the appellant; no specific violation period cited.

Parties Involved

  • Appellant (Financial Creditor): Raspalfa Services Private Limited
  • Respondent (Corporate Debtor): Nishant Avinash Fadia & Anr.
  • Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP): Not named, referenced in proceedings.
  • Other Entities Mentioned: Brahma AI Services India Limited (letter to Kotak Mahindra Bank), Kotak Mahindra Bank (requested lien holder), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Issues / Allegations / Violations

  • The appellant sought initiation of a Section 7 proceeding for a total claim of Rs 353,79,74,505 (approximately Rs 353.8 crore), comprising a principal amount of Rs 200 crore plus interest and default interest.
  • Dispute over the corporate debtor’s employee strength: appellant’s counsel claimed only 15 employees, whereas the respondent asserted the debtor operates multiple studios with 12,000 employees nationwide.
  • The NCLAT had stayed the NCLT order and directed the amount to be deposited in an interest‑bearing account with the Registrar, NCLAT by 20 May 2026.
  • A letter dated 18 May 2026 from Brahma AI Services India Limited to Kotak Mahindra Bank sought to mark a lien in favour of the Registrar, NCLAT, in compliance with the NCLAT order.

Findings & Observations

  • The Supreme Court noted that the amount claimed by the financial creditor has been duly deposited as per the NCLAT direction.
  • The Court observed that the appeal remains pending before the NCLAT, with a hearing fixed for 28 May 2026.
  • Both senior counsels (Kapil Sibal for the appellant; Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the respondent) presented arguments regarding employee numbers and the sustainability of the interim order, but the Court declined to examine merits pending the NCLAT hearing.
  • The Court recorded the undertaking by the respondent’s counsel that the deposit and lien were made at the corporate debtor’s instance.

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

  • No monetary penalties or sanctions were imposed by the Supreme Court.
  • The Court directed that the appeal be disposed of in accordance with the signed order and that all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • The matter is to proceed before the NCLAT on 28 May 2026 for further hearing.
  • The IRP is barred from taking any further steps under the NCLT order pending the NCLAT decision, as per the interim stay.
  • The deposited amount remains in the interest‑bearing account with the Registrar, NCLAT, pending final resolution.

Final Ruling & Enforcement

  • The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal (Civil Appeal No.7946/2026) and dismissed any further interference with the NCLAT proceedings.
  • All pending applications related to the matter were also disposed of.
  • No further enforcement action was ordered; the case will continue before the NCLAT as scheduled.