New Delhi, The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has given a go-ahead to the ongoing insolvency proceedings against KKSPUN India, a manufacturer and supplier of precast concrete solutions and telecom products.
The appellate tribunal NCLAT upheld the earlier order of the Delhi bench of NCLT, which had on July 11, 2025, directed the initiation of insolvency proceedings after finding a default in repayment of financial debt.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order had come over a plea moved by Yes Bank, claiming a default of Rs 60.94 crore. Besides, SBI also claimed a default of Rs 190 crore.
The NCLT order was challenged before the appellate tribunal NCLAT by Kavish Gupta, a director of the suspended board of KKSPUN India, by filing an appeal along with four other connected appeals.
Gupta had contended that NCLT had closed its right to argue and the matter was reserved for orders on April 2, 2025, without effective hearing, even as a Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement under Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 and One-Time Settlement (OTS) negotiations with a consortium of lenders were underway.
It was contended that the banks suppressed material facts about the ongoing settlement talks while the foundational orders were passed. However, NCLAT rejected it and said there was no denial of natural justice against it.
The NCLAT said the corporate debtor was granted multiple opportunities to argue but failed to avail them; written submissions were still taken on record before reserving orders.
“We find no legal or factual infirmity in the Impugned Order dated July 11, 2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitting the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,” said NCLAT.
The admission of KKSPUN India Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) has been found to be in accordance with law, said the three-member bench comprising Justice N Seshasayee, Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey.
Yes Bank and SBI, represented by their respective counsel, countered that the company had been granted repeated opportunities to argue but failed to avail them, and that its loan accounts had turned Non-Performing Assets in August 2022 following defaults on credit facilities extended since 2016 and 2011, respectively.
They also pointed to multiple OTS proposals made by the company between January 2024 and January 2025 as an implicit admission of debt and default.
