The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has formally admitted an insolvency petition against Vatika IT Parks Private Limited , marking a pivotal development in a protracted dispute involving over Rs 233.75 crore in defaulted debenture payments. The order, delivered on 9 October 2026 , initiates the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 . The tribunal’s decision underscores the necessity of strict regulatory compliance when executing the conversion of debt instruments into equity, signaling a clear shift against unilateral corporate reclassification of debt.

The dispute stems from a Debenture Trust Deed (DTD) executed on 29 July 2019 , through which Vatika IT Parks had raised Rs 125 crore by issuing 1,250,000 Optionally Convertible Debentures (OCDs) . Beacon Trusteeship Limited , acting as the debenture trustee on behalf of the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited , approached the tribunal following the Corporate Debtor’s failure to redeem these instruments. The DTD contained specific clauses granting the debenture holder a " put option "—the right to demand immediate repayment upon the expiry of 60 months from the date of allotment.

On 7 January 2025 , the Financial Creditor issued a formal notice to exercise this put option , calling for the redemption of the total outstanding amount of Rs 233,75,19,372 within seven days. When the Corporate Debtor failed to comply, the dispute escalated into the present insolvency filing. Vatika IT Parks defended its position by claiming that the debt had been extinguished. It argued that previous notices for conversion, issued in 2021 and 2024, had effectively converted the OCDs into Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) , thereby transitioning the creditors into equity participants.

Regulatory Hurdles and the Validity of Conversion

The NCLT’s analysis centered on the legal status of the debentures at the time of the put notice. The Corporate Debtor contended that it had passed the necessary Board and Shareholder resolutions in December 2024 to finalize this conversion. However, the tribunal found this argument legally insufficient, pointing to the stringent statutory requirements governing the dematerialization of securities under Section 29 of the Companies Act, 2013 , and Rule 9B of the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 .

Crucially, the International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) associated with the debentures had expired on 2 July 2024 . The tribunal observed that the responsibility for renewing or reactivating an ISIN lies with the issuing company. In its findings, the bench rejected the Corporate Debtor's claim that the debenture holder was responsible for this failure. The tribunal emphasized that the conversion of debt into equity is not merely a corporate resolution, but a procedural process that necessitates active, valid securities identifiers. Without an active ISIN, the purported conversion remained incomplete and legally ineffective.

The tribunal reaffirmed that “In absence of the same [active ISIN], the securities retain its inherent nature.” Consequently, the court held that the instruments remained debentures, and therefore, the debt liability remained live and enforceable under the IBC.

Establishing Financial Debt and Default

By confirming that the OCDs retained their character as debt instruments, the bench concluded that the outstanding claim fell squarely within the definition of " financial debt " under Section 5(8)(c) of the IBC , which explicitly covers amounts raised through the issuance of debentures. The tribunal further scrutinized the DTD, noting that the agreement clearly provided for the consequences of a failed redemption.

According to the bench, the failure to honor the put option notice constituted a clear event of default under the terms of the trust deed. As the tribunal noted, “The non-redemption of debentures upon the issuance of put notice constitutes default in terms of Clause 11 of the DTD.” Because the existence of the debt and the subsequent default were substantiated by the record, the tribunal found that the conditions for admitting the CIRP petition were fully satisfied. The bench also drew on established precedents, including previous rulings involving the same trustee, which have affirmed that an inactive ISIN does not preclude a creditor from exercising contractual rights such as a put option .

Moratorium and Next Steps for Resolution

Upon admitting the petition, the NCLT appointed Ms. Megha Agrawal as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to oversee the management of Vatika IT Parks. The order mandates that the IRP must file an authorization for assignment within three days and take immediate charge of the Corporate Debtor’s affairs. To ensure the continuity of essential operations, the tribunal directed that the supply of critical goods and services to the firm must not be interrupted during the resolution process.

A critical aspect of the NCLT’s order is the imposition of a comprehensive moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC , which takes effect immediately. This stay prohibits the institution or continuation of suits against the Corporate Debtor, prevents the transfer or encumbrance of its assets, and bars any action to foreclose or enforce security interests. Furthermore, the tribunal explicitly ordered that any licenses, permits, or governmental grants held by the company cannot be suspended or terminated solely on the grounds of insolvency, provided there is no default in current operational payments.

The ex-management, directors, and promoters of the Corporate Debtor have been directed to extend full cooperation to the IRP, as mandated by Section 19 of the Code . The tribunal also clarified that the IRP has the liberty to seek appropriate orders if any tainted or illegal transactions by the former management are uncovered. The Registry has been instructed to communicate this order to the Registrar of Companies to update the status of Vatika IT Parks on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal. With the admission of this petition, the resolution process has now officially shifted into the hands of the appointed IRP, who will soon initiate the public announcement process and invite claims from the company's creditors.