Delhi District Court
Abhishek Nijhara vs Rajender Kumartyagi on 17 February, 2026
Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJEET NARAYAN
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
DLSE030008132020
Insolvency No. 01/2020
CNR No. DLSE03-000813-2020
Sh. Abhishek Nijhara
S/o Sh. Prem Nijhara
R/o Plot no. 39, 3 Floor,
Mandakani, NRI Colony,
Greater Kailash-IV, New Delhi- 110019. .... Petitioner
VERSUS
Rajinder Kumar Tyagi Through his LRS
(i) Sh. Rakesh Tyagi
S/o Late. Rajinder Kumar Tyagi
(ii) Smt. Raj Bala Tyagi
W/o Late. Rajinder Kumar Tyagi
Both Resident of H. No. 164, VPO Burari, Delhi-110084
(iii) Smt. Manju Tyagi
W/o Sh. Gireesh Kumar Tyagi
D/o Late. Rajinder Kumar Tyagi
R/o 91/4, Site Colony, Kidwai Nagar,
Kanpur, UP-208011
(iv) Smt. Anita Tyagi
W/o Pankaj Tyagi
Page No. 1 of 17
Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
D/o Late. Rajinder Kumar Tyagi
R/o Plot No. 2/25, Near DLF School,
Rajinder Nagar, Sector-2, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, UP-201005 ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 07.03.2020
Date of Reserving Judgment : 13.01.2026
Date of Judgement : 17.02.2026
Final order : Dismissed
PETITION UNDER SECTION 7, 10, 11 AND 29 OF THE PROVINCIAL
INSOLVENCY ACT, 1920 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR
ADJUDICATION AS AN INSOLVENT
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present petition filed by Petitioner, Sh. Abhishek Nijhara, against the respondents Rajinder Kumar Tyagi Through his LRs, namely, Sh. Rakesh Tyagi, Smt. Raj Bala Tyagi, Smt. Manju Tyagi and Smt. Anita Tyagi, under Section 7, 10, 11 and 29 of Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 read with Section 151 CPC for adjudication as an insolvent.
PETITIONER'S VERSION
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is living at Plot no. 39, 3rd Floor, Mandakani Enclave, NRI Colony, Greater Kailash-IV, New Delhi-110048 and his Aadhar card number is 7404 2221 7253. It is submitted that petitioner was working as international trade as advisor and served a company as director namely M/s Badrika Projects Ltd. The petitioner had Page No. 2 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
resigned from the post of Director and after that in the year 2008, Sh. Rajinder Tyagi (deceased) made a proposal to start a business of International Trade from Dubai and he assured that he will take care entire finance and the petitioner here will perform the duty of advisor of International Trade. It is further submitted that on the proposal and assurance of the deceased, the petitioner visited Dubai on three years resident/work Visa along with Rakesh Tyagi (respondent no.1) and they both together formed a company on behalf of M/s Rajinder Tyagi (deceased) in the name and style M/s Supreme Ventures FZC, but due to financial non- cooperation of the respondent Sh. Rajinder Tyagi (deceased), the petitioner has to do coordinator job in different companies and before expiry of Visa on 23.01.2012, he came back to India.
2.1. It is further stated that after coming to India, the petitioner worked with different companies on salary and lastly, he worked with Ozone Saloon (unisex saloon) as a Managing Partner and after receiving heavy loss, all the partners decided to shut down business and 30.06.2019 was the last day of work. Since closing of the above said business, the petitioner is unemployed, however for his survival, he is doing part time job as and when he gets work from the market and earning Rs. 5000/- to 10,000/- per month. On 28.04.2011, Sh. Rajinder Kumar Tyagi (deceased) filed a false complaint case on forged cheque under Section 138 NI Act vide filling no. 19144/2011, now new Ct. Case no. 515619/2016, against the petitioner and the same is pending disposal before Ms. Naina, MM Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and next date of hearing is 05.05.2020.
2.2. It is further submitted that, on 26.08.2011, Sh. Rajinder Kumar Tyagi (deceased) filed three false complaint cases on forged cheque under Section 138 Page No. 3 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
NI Act, vide filling no. 39014, 39015 and 39016 of 2011, now new Ct. Case nos. 527955, 527956 and 527957 of 2016 against the petitioner and the same are pending disposal before Ms. Naina, MM Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. It is further submitted that on 12.12.2013, Sh. Rajinder Kumar Tyagi (deceased) had presented a plaint, on false, fabricated and forged documents bearing no. CS (OS) 143/2014, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi for recovery for a sum of Rs. 2,40,67,000/-, along with pendente lite and future interest against the petitioner herein, on same cause of action which were to be decided in the cases already pending under Section 138 NI Act. On 14.09.2018, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Delhi High Court, passed an Ex-parte Judgement against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 64,40,000/-, along with simple interest @ 8 % per annum. Thereafter, LRs of the respondent, have filed Execution petition no. 232/2018 and the same is pending disposal before the Hon'ble court of Ms. Shelly Arora, ADJ (SE), Saket Court, Delhi and the same listed for further proceeding on 27.03.2020. On 04.06.2019 the petitioner has filed his affidavit of assets before the executing court. On 13.01.2020, LRs of the respondent have filed an application under Section 51 r/w Order 21 Rule 30 and 37 and section 151 CPC for arrest and detention in prison of JD has been filed and the matter is listed for 27.03.2020.
2.3. It is further submitted that the petitioner is unemployed and facing extreme difficulties to maintain himself and to meets demands of the respondents/creditors and to contest court cases including criminal cases. The petitioner does not own any immoveable or moveable property except some clothes of daily use. There are no debtor/debtors of the petitioner and the list of the debtor/debtors as on this date is Nil. The petitioner neither has cash nor Page No. 4 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
bank balance nor has immoveable and moveable property to satisfy the decreed amount and demands of the respondents/ creditors of the amount due from the petitioner/debtors under the above said Ex-parte Judgement dated 14.09.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and proceedings under execution petition no. 232/2018, pending disposal before the Hon'ble court of ADJ (SE), Saket Court, Delhi. It is stated that since the petitioner is unemployed graduate person, is not in a position to make the payment of the above said amount in lump sum. He is very much intended to pay and clear his debts. The petitioner is under great apprehension of arrest as the LRs of the respondent have filed an application under Section 51 r/w Order 21 rule 30 and 37 and section 151 CPC for arrest and detention. The petitioner is suffering a great mental tension and agony on account of the non- cooperation on the part of the respondents/creditors. Hence, this petition is filed by the petitioner to pass order of adjudication in favour of petitioner thereby declaring the petitioner as insolvent.
RESPONDENT'S VERSION
3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent appeared before the court pursuant to service of summons. Thereafter, reply to the petition was filed on behalf of the respondent wherein the respondent denies all allegations made by the petitioner and contested the suit. It is further stated that the present petition is barred under Section 10 of The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 as the petitioner is capable of paying his debt. The present petition has been moved by the petitioner after filing of the application by the LR of the Decree Holder for his arrest in pending Execution No. 1672/2018 after having made a payment of Rs. 3,00,000/-, to the Page No. 5 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
DH on 04-06-2019 and further sought adjournment for filing a schedule of payments which he proposed to make to the DH. Earlier father of the petitioner appeared in the above said matter on 29-04-2019 and expressed his inclination to pay the principal amount and prayed for short adjournment. The petitioner is admittedly residing in posh colony and had been to abroad also. The petitioner is capable of raising funds to satisfy his debts. The only debt which the petitioner needs to pay is the decretal amount under execution in Ex No. 1672/2018. The petitioner has tried to mislead the courts of law regarding his capacity to pay his debts and has stated false facts to avoid the payment of his debts of decretal amount to the DH/Respondents. The present petition is an abuse of the process of courts and has been filed by the petitioner with malafide intentions to avoid the payment of decretal amount which cannot be allowed under the law.
3.1. It is further stated that the petitioner has stated false facts knowingly before the courts. The petitioner in his affidavit dated 10-05-2019(annexure-5 to the petition under reply) has declared himself to be unemployed and has also stated simultaneously to be partner in 'Rai Services' situated at HS-12, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner has stated different story regarding his employment and earning. The petitioner was always involved in business activities and as such he is capable of paying his debts. The petitioner has never disclosed his tax returns and bank accounts and his business concerns after filing of the civil suit for recovery of money against him.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issue was framed vide order dated 02.05.2023: -
Page No. 6 of 17Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
(i) Whether the Petitioner is entitled the Order of adjudication in his favour against the Respondent to declare him as insolvent as per law? OPP.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
5. The petitioner examined Sh. Abhishek Nijhara as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Photocopy of Aadhar Card of deponent is Ex.PW1/1.
(ii) Certified copy of judgment dated 14.09.2018 in CS(OS) No. 143/2014 passed by Hon'ble Justice Ms. Pratibha M Singh, Hon'ble High court of Delhi is Ex PW-1/2.
(iii) Certified copy of execution petition no. 1672/2018 is Ex PW-1/3.
(iv) Certified copy of the affidavit of assets dated 04.06.2019 is Ex PW-1/4.
(v) The list of Creditors is Ex.PW1/6.
(vi) The list of assets as on today of the deponent is Ex.PW1/7.
(vii) The list of debtor/debtors is Ex.PW1/8.
PW1/petitioner was duly cross-examined by Mr. Satyavan Kudalwal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. No other witness was sought to be summoned or examined by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed vide order dated 09.06.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE Page No. 7 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
6. The respondent chose not to lead evidence, thereafter the matter was put up for final arguments. After hearing the final arguments, matter was fixed for judgment.
FINDINGS
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under: -
ISSUE NO. 1(i) Whether the Petitioner is entitled the Order of adjudication in his favour against the Respondent to declare him as insolvent as per law? OPP.
The burden of proving the present issue, i.e., issue no. 1 lies upon the petitioner. Before deciding the present issue, the applicable law regarding the insolvency needs to be discussed. The relevant provisions of The Provincial Insolvency Act 1920 are discussed herein after.
Section 7 of The Provincial Insolvency Act 1920 provides regarding the order of adjudication on petition filed by the debtor or creditor. The same reads as:
"Section 7. Petition and adjudication: Subject to the conditions specified in this Act, if a debtor commits an act of insolvency, an insolvency petition may be presented either by a creditor or by the debtor, and the Court may on such petition make an order (hereinafter called an order of adjudication) adjudging him an insolvent. Explanation. --The presentation of a petition by the debtor shall be deemed an act of insolvency within the meaning of this section, and on such petition the Court may make an order of adjudication."Page No. 8 of 17
Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
For a petitioner-debtor to succeed in his petition, he has to further satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 which are as under: -
(1) He is unable to pay his debts; and (2) His debts amount to Rs. 500/- or more, or (3) He is under arrest or imprisonment in execution of any decree of any Court for the payment of money, or (4) An order of attachment in execution of such a decree has been made and is subsisting, against his property.
Section 24 of the Insolvency Act lays down the procedure to be followed at hearing. It provides that:
"Procedure at hearing - (1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the petition, or on any subsequent day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Court shall require proof of the following matters, namely: -
(a) that the creditor or the debtor, as the case may be, is entitled to present the petition:
Provided that, where the debtor is the petitioner, he shall, for the purposes of proving his inability to pay his debts, be required to furnish only such proof as to satisfy the Court that there are prima facie grounds for believing the same and the Court, if any when so satisfied, shall not be bound to hear any further evidence thereon;
(b) that the debtor, if he does not appear on a petition presented by a creditor, has been served with notice of the order admitting the petition; and Page No. 9 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
(c) that the debtor has committed the act of insolvency alleged against him.
(2) The Court shall also examine the debtor, if he is present, as to his conduct, dealings and property in the presence of such creditors as appear at the hearing, and the creditors shall have the right to question the debtor thereon.
(3) The Court shall, if sufficient cause is shown, grant time to the debtor or to any creditor to produce any evidence which appears to it to be necessary for the proper disposal of the petition. (4) A memorandum of the substance of the examination of the debtor and of any other oral evidence given shall be made by the Judge, and shall form part of the record of the case."
The scope of Section 10 was considered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in "K.R.K.K. Krishnappa Chettiar Vs. V.V.R. Kasivishwanathan Chettiar & Ors, AIR 1966 Madras 331" wherein it was held that:
"...for adjudicating a debtor as insolvent, the court must see whether there is compliance of provisions of Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. 1920. When all the conditions specified in Section 10 are satisfied, the debtor is entitled to an order of adjudication. The matter does not depend on the discretion of the Court, but it is a statutory right of which he cannot be deprived by the court on the ground of abuse of process. At the time of the initiation of the proceedings, the court has only to be satisfied that the essential conditions for adjudication as provided under the Act are present. There is a stage at which the court can visit on the petitioner its due consequences of misconduct that is when the application for discharge comes before the Court."Page No. 10 of 17
Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
The expression 'prima facie grounds' in proviso to Section 24 (1) (a) was considered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in "Karnakam v. Jayaseelam Chettiar & Ors, AIR 1977 Madras 250" wherein it was held that:
"...when the petition for being adjudged an insolvent is made by a debtor, the Court has under Proviso to Section 24(1) (a) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 to be satisfied, prima facie, that the petitioner is unable to pay his debts, and on being so satisfied, it is not bound to hear any further evidence on the opulence or the ability of the petitioner to pay his debts. It was further observed that the provisions of provincial Insolvency Act 1920 do not enable the Court to dismiss the petition for insolvency on superficial inquiry to come to a conclusion that the petition is not a bona fide one and if any such situation arises, the stage at which the court can visit the petitioner for any alleged consequences of any misconduct of the debtor of which the debtor applies for discharge and not at the initial stage when an application under the Act is made by a debtor himself to be adjudged an insolvent. If such an enquiry was contemplated, the Act should have specifically provided for it. The reasons for this appear to be obvious as the Official Receiver who comes into picture after adjudication and who represents the body of creditors, would necessarily investigate into the question for the benefit of the creditors and if any assets have been screened by the debtors, he would bring the same into the pool for purpose of division of the same amongst the body of creditors."
Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "Dasari Srihari Rao v. Talluri Harinadha Babu, 2002 SCC On Line AP 432" held that:
"5. Thus, Section 13(1)(e) of the Act imposes an obligation on the debtor making the application, to furnish the particulars of all his property in his application and as could be seen from the opening words of the section which mandates by the use of the expression 'Shall'. Though mere use of the expression 'shall' do not by itself is the Page No. 11 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
determinative factor to decide whether the provision is mandatory or directory, having regard to the fact that one of the questions in an insolvency application being that the debtor is unable to pay his debts, could only be ascertained on prima facie view of the fact that the value of the debts of the debtor exceeded his assets and as such he is unable to discharge them and also in view of the fact that the assets of the insolvent vest in the Court on making the order of adjudication under Section 28(2) of the Act, the prescription under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act is mandatory. Under Section 25 of the Act, the Court is empowered to dismiss the application if the Court is not satisfied of the debtor's right to present the petition. Thus, a cumulative reading of the above provisions makes it clear without any ambiguity that the debtor shall show that he is unable to discharge his debts and satisfy one of the conditions stipulated in Section 10 and on his furnishing all the information as is required by Section 13, he can be adjudicated as an insolvent. If on the failure of the above, the application is liable for rejection under Section 25(2) of the Act."
Therefore, it can be inferred from abovementioned judgements and the law laid down, that in an insolvency application, debtor has to prove that he is unable to pay his debts, and court has to ascertain it by taking a prima facie view. Although, it is also settled that court is not supposed to go deep into the inquiry of insolvency claim, but debtor needs to prove his case prima facie that he is unable to pay his debt. Also, it is the duty of the debtor that he has to make a full and true disclosure of all relevant facts regarding all of his assets in insolvency petition and he should not suppress any facts. The same is embedded into the Statute by directing the applicant/debtor to state the facts as mandated by Section 13 of the Act and failure will visit the consequence of dismissal of the application under Section 25(2) of the Act.
Page No. 12 of 17Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
8. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, the present petition is filed under The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, whereby the petitioner seeks to be adjudged as insolvent on the ground that he is unable to pay his debts and has no sufficient means or realizable assets to discharge the outstanding liabilities owed to respondent. It is the case of petitioner that initially he was working in international trade as advisor and served as director in company namely M/s Badrika Projects Ltd., and thereafter he had resigned from the post of Director and after that in the year 2008, the petitioner visited Dubai on three years resident/work Visa along with Rakesh Tyagi (respondent no.1) and they both together formed a company in the name and style M/s Supreme Ventures FZC, but due to financial non- cooperation of the respondent Sh. Rajinder Tyagi (deceased), the petitioner has to do coordinator job in different companies and before expiry of Visa on 23.01.2012, he came back to India. Thereafter, after coming to India, the petitioner worked with different companies on salary and lastly, he worked with Ozone Saloon (unisex saloon) as a Managing Partner and after receiving heavy loss, business was shut down on 30.06.2019. It is the case of petitioner that respondent had filed a suit, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for recovery for a sum of Rs. 2,40,67,000/-, along with pendente lite and future interest against the petitioner herein, on the basis of some cheques and then Hon'ble Delhi High Court, passed an Ex-parte Judgement against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 64,40,000/-, along with simple interest @ 8% per annum and thereafter, LRs of the respondent, have filed execution petition against the petitioner. Petitioner further submits that he is unemployed and facing extreme difficulties to maintain himself and despite efforts to repay, he neither has cash nor bank balance or any immoveable and moveable property to satisfy the decreed amount and demands of the respondents/creditors of the Page No. 13 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
amount due from the petitioner/debtors under the above said Ex-parte Judgement and the Respondents have initiated proceedings for arrest and detention.
In support of his claim, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and has deposed on the line of petition in his evidence affidavit and has relied upon documents, i.e., Certified copy of judgment dated 14.09.2018 in CS(OS) No. 143/2014 passed by Hon'ble High court of Delhi as Ex PW-1/2, Certified copy of execution petition no. 1672/2018 as Ex PW-1/3, Certified copy of the affidavit of assets dated 04.06.2019 as Ex PW-1/4, the list of creditors as Ex.PW1/6, the list of assets as on today of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/7, and the list of debtor/debtors as Ex.PW1/8.
At the heart of every insolvency adjudication lies the principle of equity, good conscience, and honest disclosure. The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, does not confer an automatic right upon a debtor to seek adjudication as an insolvent merely upon assertion of inability to pay debts. The statute requires a thorough inquiry into the debtor's financial affairs, conduct, and truthfulness in disclosing all material facts. The burden lies on the petitioner to satisfy the Court, both by pleading and proof, that (a) he is unable to pay his debts; and (b) he has acted honestly and with transparency in approaching the Court. However, it is a well-settled principle that the protection of insolvency law is meant for the honest but unfortunate debtor, not for one who conceals material facts or manipulates legal process to evade lawful recovery.
In the present case, Petitioner has merely filed affidavit of assets mentioning that, presently he is employed and partner in Rai Services, HS-12, Kailash Colony, Delhi, however, it is not doing any business. Further he shows his income as Nil and he is living with his father and the house is in the name Page No. 14 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
of his father. Further, petitioner has mentioned the details of his bank account in affidavit of assets. Now, the most notable aspect of the evidence in the present case is the lack of any independent proof of insolvency by the petitioner. Petitioner has not filed the account statement, balance sheet of liabilities and assets of his alleged partnership firm Rai Services, he has not filed any income certificate, and most importantly he has not filed the bank account statement to show his financial status. He has also not filed his income tax return to show his bonafide, as he has mentioned in his asset affidavit that he filed income tax returns. Although the petitioner has stated that he is unable to repay the loans, no genuine effort has been made to disclose his total financial status. Further, the petitioner claims that he resides at 39, Top Floor, Mandakini, NRI Complex, GK-IV, Delhi with his father, which is in the name of his father, however, in his cross examination, PW-1 has deposed that house belongs to his mother. However, Petitioner has not filed any ownership documents of the house where he is residing, which he could have easily filed. This shows that he has intentionally not disclosed all the material facts according to the applicable law of insolvency. Further, as per his asset's affidavit, Ex. PW1/4, which is his document only, he has mentioned in para 1 of declaration that his father, who is the owner of property bearing no. 39, Top Floor, Mandakini NRI complex, GK- IV, New Delhi, is ready to satisfy the decree on his behalf by selling the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is unable to pay his debts as per his own admission. Petitioner has not shown comprehensively that house where he is living, is not his own or he is not having any share in the house. Therefore, Petitioner has not filed adequate financial disclosure of assets and liabilities as mandated under Section 13 of the Act. Simply by filing affidavit of assets and merely asserting that he has no financial capacity to pay his debts does not Page No. 15 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
discharge his liability to prove his case prima facie that he is unable to pay his debts. In the present case, it is evident that while the petitioner asserts financial distress, he has neither annexed any proof of assets and liabilities, nor furnished income and expenditure statements, etc. Further, the alleged financial incapacity is not corroborated with independent documentary proof. He has not filed even his bank account statement to show his present financial capacity and to prove that the balance in the said account was not sufficient to meet his debts. The circumstances suggest that the present petition is more in the nature of a defensive litigation rather than a bonafide prayer for adjudication of insolvency.
In conclusion, the petitioner's claim of financial collapse lacks the sincerity, completeness, and transparency required under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. While there is evidence of business failure and litigation, the petitioner has not come forward with full disclosure of his financial affairs, nor has he demonstrated any credible effort to repay his debts or resolve liabilities. The insolvency petition, instead of being an honest disclosure, appears to be a device to obstruct creditor recovery and avoid obligations. While insolvency laws are intended to protect honest but unfortunate debtors, they cannot be invoked in cases where there is suppression, selective disclosure, or attempts to defeat the legal process. The petitioner, having failed to discharge the burden of proving actual insolvency with cogent, reliable and full disclosure, cannot be granted the relief prayed for.
Therefore, apart from mere testimony of petitioner, no material is brought on record in support of the averments contained in the petition. Even to establish prima facie case, apart from mere averments, petitioner was required to produce some corroborating material on record, which the plaintiff has failed Page No. 16 of 17 Insolvency No. 1/20 ABHISHEK NIJHARA VS. RAJINDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.
to produce. In absence of any such material/documents, it cannot be said that petitioner has been able to establish even a prima facie case that he is unable to pay his debts. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to be adjudged as insolvent under Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. The petitioner is held not entitled to be adjudicated as insolvent.
RELIEF
9. In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The instant petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
AJEET
today i.e. 17-02-2026 AJEET
NARAYAN
NARAYAN
Date:
2026.02.17
17:01:47
+0530
(Ajeet Narayan)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ: South-East
Saket Courts: Delhi
Page No. 17 of 17