As per case facts, the respondent company, Ecstasy Realty Private limited, sought to restructure a loan under debentures with one debenture holder, proposing a moratorium and property release. The debenture ... trustee was not initially consulted, and the debenture holders later rejected the restructuring. Subsequently, the debenture trustee issued a loan recall notice and filed for corporate insolvency, which was dismissed by NCLT and NCLAT, who inferred a moratorium based on these discussions and the debenture trustee's awareness. The debenture trustee appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the DTD terms requiring formal modification were ignored. The question arose whether the NCLT and NCLAT erred in finding a moratorium and a binding restructuring agreement without proper adherence to the Debenture Trust Deed's terms, thereby negating a financial default. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the NCLT and NCLAT incorrectly presumed a moratorium and restructuring, having ignored the DTD's binding terms for modification. It found that a financial debt and default existed, directing the admission of the insolvency application.