Tribunal says conflicting emails and ledger entries must be verified before deciding whether Mufin Green Finance adjusted the deposit before or during the moratorium.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, has ordered an independent forensic audit in a dispute concerning the alleged appropriation of a security deposit of Rs 1,34,14,800 by Mufin Green Finance Limited during the insolvency proceedings of Gensol Engineering Limited.
The application was filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking refund of the amount with interest and correction of Mufin’s claim. The RP contended that the respondent had adjusted the security deposit on 21 July 2025, after the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 13 June 2025, and therefore during the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Code.
Mufin Green Finance, however, denied that any wrongful adjustment had taken place during CIRP. It argued that the amount was not a refundable security deposit but a non-refundable payment security under the lease agreement dated 24 March 2023. According to the respondent, the amount had already been adjusted on 16 April 2025, before the insolvency commencement date, and the later reference to 21 July 2025 in an email was only a clerical error.
The Tribunal noted that the parties had taken inconsistent stands on the key question of when the adjustment actually occurred. While the RP relied on an email dated 6 December 2025 stating that the deposit had been adjusted on 21 July 2025, the respondent relied on its ledger and termination communications to assert that the adjustment had been made earlier. Since the dispute turned on the genuineness and timing of the accounting entries, the NCLT held that factual verification was necessary.
The Bench observed that the issue could not be decided merely on rival pleadings and required examination of the underlying books of account, ledger entries, vouchers, accounting records, and electronic/email trail. Accordingly, it appointed CA Anmol Bindra as an Independent Forensic Auditor to verify the date and time of creation or modification of the relevant entries and reconcile them with supporting records.
The Tribunal made it clear that the auditor would confine the examination to factual verification and would not express any opinion on the legal merits of the dispute. It also directed both sides to cooperate fully with the audit, with the fee to be shared equally by the Resolution Professional and the respondent.
The matter has now been listed for further consideration on 30 September 2026. The NCLT kept open all legal questions, including whether any alleged appropriation violated the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Bottom Line :
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Dispute regarding appropriation of security deposit by lessor/creditor - Where respondent first stated by email that security deposit was adjusted after commencement of CIRP, but later claimed it had been adjusted before CIRP and described earlier date as clerical error - Tribunal held that actual date and manner of adjustment required factual verification from books, ledgers, vouchers and electronic audit trail - Independent Forensic Auditor appointed - Legal merits kept open.
Statutory provision(s): Section 14, Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016
Mr. Keshav Khaneja v. Mufin Green Finance Limited, (NCLT)(Ahmedabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987194
