JUDGEMENT

(Virtual Mode) [Per; Ms. Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)]: 1. The present `Appeal’ is filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as the Code), is against the `Impugned Order’ dated 06.05.2020, passed by the `Learned Adjudicating Authority’ (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench) in C.P. (IB) No.573/7/HDB/2019, whereby the `Adjudicating Authority’ had `dismissed’ the `Section 7 Application’ filed by the `Appellant’ herein, observing as follows:

“13. Through the said final report, it has been established that the amount of Rs.51.00 lakhs had actually gone to the credit of various individuals in addition to Rs. 1.14 crores credited to the account of Mr. G. Madhusudan Rao and his wife, Smt. G. Surekha. In the final report, it is also established that the Agreement of Sale stamp paper bearing No.BB029594, dated 28.01.2013 was false as the genuine stamp paper of the said number was actually issued and utilized by some other person on 17.01.2013 and was not issued for the Agreement of Sale dated 12.03.2013. above discussion is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds:

establish his status as Financial Creditor in terms of Section 5(7) of IBC which states as under:

5(7) "Financial Creditor" means any person to whom a financial debt is owed and includes a person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred to.

Further, the transaction covered by the said Agreement of Sale can be at best termed as advance against purchase of land and the same lacks the ingredient of disposal of am hunt against consideration for time value of money as is required under section 5(8) of the IBC. clauses (d) and (zn) of section 2 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016)1]

15. The said Agreement of Sale dated 12.03.2013 has been held to be false and the same cannot be relied upon for any proceedings under the IBC.

The document on which Agreement of Sale has been executed, has been held false.

Thus, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.” 2. The Learned Counsel for the `Appellant’ submitted that the `Appellant’ herein entered into an `Agreement of Sale’ dated 12.03.2013 and paid an amount of Rs.91,55,000/- in cash and Rs.22,45,000/- through RTGS, and as per the terms and conditions of the `Sale Agreement’, a further amount of Rs.51,000,000/- was also transferred to the `slipping partners’ of `M/s. Grandhe Developers Private Limited’. It is further submitted that Mr. Grandhe Madhusudhan Rao and Mrs. Grandhe Surekha are the Directors of the Company and that the `Corporate Debtor Company’ had also taken an amount of Rs.1Crore/- the executing Promissory Notes in favour of the `Financial Creditor’. It is also the case of the `Appellant’ that the interest payable on this amount of Rs.1Crore/- as on 02.07.2019 is Rs.1,12,08,403/- and that the total amount due on the demand Promissory Notes along with the interest is Rs.2,12,08,403/- and that the `Corporate Debtor’ had issued cheques, which were dishonoured, on account of which Legal Notices dated 12.09.2017, 25.01.2019 and 18.03.2019 were issued to the `Corporate Debtor’, for refund of cheques amount and he had failed to refund the same.

3. A `Demand Notice’, in `Form 3’, was sent to the `Corporate Debtor’ on 03.07.2019, demanding payable of Rs.2,12,08,403/- for which there was no reply. Learned Counsel for the `Appellant’ vehemently contended that Mr. G Madhusudhan Rao, the Director has taken from the `Financial Creditor’ for business purposes and it is also mentioned in the Sale Agreement dated 12.03.2013 that about 116 Plots has been allotted to the `Financial Creditor’ against the amount paid to them, but so far, no registration was done in the name of the `Financial Creditor’. The `Appellant’, had filed `Cheque Bounce Cases’, and the `Recovery Suit’ against the `Corporate Debtor’ who is only evading these proceedings.

4. Learned Counsel for the `Respondent’/`Cor