1. Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): Empowers financial creditors to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor upon default.

2. Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013: Disqualifies directors of companies that fail to file financial statements or annual returns for three consecutive years.

3. Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013: Allows the Registrar of Companies (RoC) to strike off inactive or non-compliant companies.

4. Section 29A of IBC: Restricts certain persons from submitting a resolution plan, including disqualified directors.

5. Relevant judicial precedents: Cited judgments such as Mukul Pathak & Ors. vs. Union of India to determine the applicability of disqualification provisions.

- JKM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (the financial creditor) filed a Section 7 application against Cadillac Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (the corporate debtor) seeking the initiation of CIRP.

- The application was filed by Mr. Vinod Kumar Sachdeva, an authorized representative of JKM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

- The corporate debtor challenged the application on the grounds that the authorized representative, Mr. Sachdeva, was disqualified as a director of a sister company, Airwil Infracon Pvt. Ltd., which had been struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.

- The corporate debtor argued that since Sachdeva was disqualified under Section 164(2)(a), he was not competent to file an application on behalf of the financial creditor.

1. Whether the authorized representative of the financial creditor, being a disqualified director, was competent to file a Section 7 application.

2. Whether the striking off of a sister company (Airwil Infracon Pvt. Ltd.) had any bearing on the eligibility of its director to act on behalf of another company (JKM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.).

3. Whether the NCLT correctly admitted the insolvency petition against Cadillac Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

- The NCLAT observed that the disqualification of a director under Section 164(2)(a) applies only to their ability to act as a director in a company and does not necessarily impact their authority to represent a company as an authorized signatory.

- The tribunal noted that while Airwil Infracon Pvt. Ltd. was struck off under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, this did not automatically disqualify its directors from performing functions in other companies.

- The court distinguished between a director's personal disqualification and a company’s ability to authorize any individual to act on its behalf.

- The Delhi High Court judgment in Mukul Pathak & Ors. vs. Union of India was referenced to clarify that disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) applies prospectively and does not automatically impact all other companies where the individual serves as a director.

- The NCLAT upheld the order of the NCLT and ruled that the Section 7 application was validly filed by the financial creditor.

- It dismissed the corporate debtor’s contention that the disqualification of a director in one company would render them ineligible to file an insolvency application on behalf of another company.

- The tribunal emphasized that unless expressly barred by law, a financial creditor has the right to authorize any individual to initiate proceedings under IBC.

- Accordingly, the appeal by Cadillac Infotech Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed, and the CIRP proceedings against it continued as per the provisions of the IBC.