2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 542

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)
Amisha In Sky Creation Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep D Maheshwari, Resolution Professional of Setubandhan Infrastructure Limited – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 578 of 2025 | Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 640 of 2025

A mortgage of property by a third party to secure a loan for a corporate debtor does not constitute a 'financial debt' under IBC Section 5(8) because there is no disbursal of funds from the third party to the corporate debtor.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 5(7), 5(8), 3(30), 3(31), 61 - For a debt to be 'financial debt' under Section 5(8), essential elements are disbursement against consideration for time value of money - Mortgage of property by a third party to secure a loan from a bank for the corporate debtor, without any disbursal of funds by the third party to the corporate debtor, does not constitute a 'financial debt' - The definition cannot be read so expansively that the root requirements of 'disbursement' against 'the consideration for time value of money' could be forsaken. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 18)

(B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 61 - Limitation - Claim filed within 90 days of invitation of claims cannot be rejected on ground of delay - Substantive rights of a claimant under a beneficial legislation cannot be defeated on procedural grounds of delay when no such delay existed. (Paras 26, 27, 28)

(C) Contract Act, 1872 - Section 140 - A guarantor can step into the creditor's shoes only upon payment or performance of the guaranteed debt - A guarantee given to a bank, not to the corporate debtor, does not create a right of the guarantor against the corporate debtor under the IBC. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The Corporate Debtor obtained a loan from a bank. The Appellant mortgaged its properties with the bank as security for the Corporate Debtor's loan. A Deed of Agreement was executed between the Appellant and Corporate Debtor, obligating the Corporate Debtor to repay the loan and release the Appellant's property. The Appellant filed a claim in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor as an unsecured financial creditor. The RP rejected the claim. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) dismissed the IA challenging the rejection but reclassified the Appellant as a secured financial creditor. The Appellant appealed the rejection of its claim, and the RP appealed the reclassification.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the Appellant did not disburse any funds to the Corporate Debtor. The mortgage of property by the Appellant to the bank did not amount to a 'disbursal' required under Section 5(8) of the IBC. As there was no financial debt owed to the Appellant, it could not be a financial creditor under Section 5(7). The Adjudicating Authority's reclassification of the Appellant as a secured financial creditor was erroneous. However, the Appellant, having provided property as collateral and being entitled to interest, had a valid claim which should have been categorized under 'other creditors'. The rejection of the claim on the ground of delay was also incorrect as the claim was filed within 90 days of the invitation.

Issues: The main issues were (i) whether the Appellant could be considered a 'secured financial creditor' under the IBC; and (ii) whether the Appellant's claim deserved to be admitted.

Ratio Decidendi: The essential element of 'disbursement' against 'consideration for time value of money' is a mandatory requirement for a debt to be classified as a 'financial debt'. A third-party mortgage of property to secure a loan for the corporate debtor, without any actual disbursal of funds from the third party to the corporate debtor, does not satisfy this requirement. Consequently, the mortgagee cannot claim the status of a 'financial creditor'. However, such a claimant may be entitled to file a claim under the category of 'other creditors'. Result : Company Appeal 578 of 2025 (by the Appellant) dismissed. Company Appeal 640 of 2025 (by the RP) partially allowed, setting aside the finding of the Appellant as a secured financial creditor but upholding the admissibility of the claim. Directed the RP to categorize the Appellant's claim as an 'other creditor' and place an addendum before the CoC if the resolution plan provides for such creditors. with 8% interest from the date of filing of claim petition to be released to rightful claimants in the manner directed by the Tribunal.

Issues: The main issues were the authoritative document for determining age between the School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card and the justification for the High Court's reduction of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the School Leaving Certificate holds statutory recognition and should be prioritized over the Aadhar Card for age determination, reaffirming the principle that appellate courts should not substitute their view unless the lower court's decision is perverse or illegal. Result : Appeals allowed.