2022 (12) TMI 1245 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Claim of applicant rejected by RP - rejection on the ground that the claim amount is not based on any valid loan agreement - main bone of contention of the Respondent is that there was no payment received by the Corporate Debtor form the Applicant and the books of accounts do not have ledger Account in the name of the applicant, Tulip Trade Link - HELD THAT - It could be seen that the Applicant has not placed on record any financial contract in order to substantiate the claim filed before the RP. Further, from the submissions made it could be seen that there is no contract/agreement entered into between the parties for the disbursement of the said loan to the Corporate Debtor. It could be seen that the term financial debt denotes a 'debt' along with interest, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money. In the present case, the amount has been disbursed to the Corporate Debtor, however there is no document placed on record to show as to what is the interest which is agreed between the parties - it could be seen that the Applicant himself has left it to the discretion of this Tribunal to fix the rate of interest, which itself shows that there is no rate of interest agreed between the parties. Further, the Applicant has also not attached the Form 26AS in order to prove that they have deducted TDS. It could be seen that the Applicant has placed on record a letter from its banker viz. Bank of Baroda which states that a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- has been transferred by way of RTGS to the Corporate Debtor. Thus, the amount has been disbursed to the Corporate Debtor, however the Applicant has miserably failed to establish that the said debt would qualify as financial debt. It could be seen that there is no dispute between the parties that the amount was received through banking channel. In the said circumstances, we hereby direct the Respondent to admit the claim of the Applicant to the tune of Rs. 26,00,000/- without interest, under the category of other creditors - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of claim by resolution professional under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Dispute regarding the nature of the debt claimed by the Applicant.
3. Lack of documentary evidence to establish the financial debt claimed.
4. Validity of the claim filed by the Applicant as a financial creditor.
5. Interpretation of the term "financial debt" under Section 5 of the IBC, 2016.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The rejection of the claim by the resolution professional was challenged by the Applicant under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Applicant sought various reliefs, including setting aside the rejection, re-verification of the books of the Corporate Debtor, and induction as a Financial Creditor in the Committee of Creditors.

Issue 2: The dispute centered around the nature of the debt claimed by the Applicant. The Applicant alleged that a significant amount was loaned to the Corporate Debtor based on discussions and understandings with the managing director of the Corporate Debtor. However, the Respondent raised concerns regarding the lack of a valid loan agreement and satisfactory evidence to establish the debt as a financial one.

Issue 3: The lack of documentary evidence to substantiate the financial debt claimed by the Applicant was a key contention. The Respondent argued that the claim was not supported by proper documentation, including financial contracts or loan agreements, as required by regulations. The absence of a clear agreement between the parties for the disbursement of the loan raised doubts about the validity of the claim.

Issue 4: The validity of the claim filed by the Applicant as a financial creditor was questioned by the Respondent, citing the absence of payment records from the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant. The Respondent contended that the Applicant lacked 'locus standi' due to the absence of a loan contract or agreement between the parties.

Issue 5: The interpretation of the term "financial debt" under Section 5 of the IBC, 2016 was crucial in determining the eligibility of the claim. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of financial debt and emphasized the requirement for a debt disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money, including interest. The Tribunal highlighted the need for clear documentation and evidence to establish the financial nature of the debt claimed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the Respondent to admit the claim of the Applicant to the tune of Rs. 26,00,000 without interest under the category of "other creditors," based on the lack of dispute regarding the receipt of the amount through banking channels and the absence of established interest terms or documentation to qualify the debt as a financial one.