Culver Max Insolvency Plea Against Fintech Firm: NCLAT Quashes NCLT Order, Directs Fresh Hearing

In a relief to Culver Max Entertainment (formerly known as Sony Pictures Network India), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has set aside an National Company Law Tribunal order rejecting the insolvency plea filed by the broadcaster against an Odisha-based fintech firm.

The NCLAT has remanded the matter back to the Cuttack bench of the NCLT to hear it afresh.

The NCLAT observed that NCLT should at least give an opportunity to Culver Max to rectify the defect in the application, and said the opportunity was not given in the present case.

Hence, the NCLT order, which was passed on April 30, 2024, suffers from illegality and needs to be set aside, said a two-member NCLAT bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Member, Judicial) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member, Technical).

"In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the appeal, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the NCLT to provide an opportunity to the appellant to cure the defects in authorisation and thereafter, the matter may be heard on merits," said NCLAT.

This exercise should be done preferably within two months, as added by NCLAT in its order passed on Dec. 10, 2025.

On April 30, 2024, the NCLT had dismissed the Section 9 application filed by Culver Max Entertainment against Rechargekit Fintech.

It was dismissed on ground as no resolution was passed by the company ratifying the action, and no such decision of the Board of Directors was placed on record in that case.

This was challenged by Culver Max before the appellate tribunal NCLAT.

It contended that NCLT ought to have granted time/an opportunity to Culver Max to file a fresh Board Resolution/authorisation as provided under the proviso to Section 9(5)(ii) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, instead of dismissing the application on maintainability.

NCLAT also agreed to it and said, "it was the duty of the NCLT to at least put the appellant on notice, requiring him to rectify the defect in the application and admittedly the said opportunity was not given in the present case. Hence the impugned order suffers from illegality and needs to be set aside," said NCLAT in its four-page-order.

Section 9(5)(ii) of IBC says NCLT had the power to reject the application and communicate such a decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor if the application made under sub-section (2) is incomplete.

It also has a provision for a notice, which has to be given to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of the date of receipt of such notice from the adjudicating authority.