Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Ritwika Nanda
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Mr. Chirag Sharma, Mr. Vinod Chaurasia, Mr. Sajjan Kumar Dokania

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The appeal concerns the initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the Corporate Debtor, Jabalpur MSW Pvt. Ltd., by the Financial Creditor, State Bank of India (!) .

2. The primary dispute revolves around the correct "date of default" for the purpose of initiating insolvency proceedings. The Appellant argues that the default occurred only after receiving the Loan Recall Notice on 11.08.2020, and that prior payments made after the NPA classification should be considered to have cured the default, thus making the proceedings barred under the period specified in Section 10A of the IBC (!) (!) .

3. The Respondent maintains that the default date is the date of the NPA declaration, which was on 27.09.2019, as this date signifies the point at which the entire outstanding debt became due and payable due to continued non-payment beyond the prescribed period (!) (!) .

4. The classification of the loan account as an NPA is a regulatory measure based on the borrower’s failure to service the debt for 90 days, which automatically renders the entire outstanding amount due and payable, establishing a default under the law (!) (!) .

5. Despite the classification as NPA, the borrower continued to make payments, but the accounts were never regularized or brought back to a standard status, meaning the default persisted from the NPA date onward (!) (!) .

6. The Loan Recall Notice issued on 11.08.2020 was an opportunity for the borrower to settle the outstanding dues, but it did not constitute or accelerate the default itself. The default was already in existence since the NPA classification date, and the notice was merely a reminder or further opportunity, not a trigger for default (!) (!) (!) .

7. The application filed under Section 7 did not comply with the legal requirements for establishing a default, as it lacked proper evidence such as records recorded with an information utility or certified account entries, and the statement of accounts indicated ongoing payments, which did not conclusively establish a default (!) (!) (!) .

8. The evidence and records support that the default continued from the NPA classification date, and the default was not cured by subsequent payments or actions, thereby validating the date of NPA as the default date under the law (!) (!) (!) .

9. The proceedings and the decision to admit the application for initiating CIRP were upheld, as the default was established in accordance with legal provisions, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly (!) .

10. Overall, the legal order confirms that the date of NPA classification is the appropriate and valid date of default for initiating insolvency proceedings, and the appeal's arguments to the contrary are not supported by the facts or legal principles (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.