SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1784

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Mr. Praveen Gupta, Member (Judicial), Mr. Ashish Verma, Member (Technical)
Dr. Raj Pal Singh Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
Anand Nirogdham Hospital Private Limited – Respondent
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Ujjawal Satsangi
For the Respondents: Sh. Rohan Gupta

A financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires demonstrable disbursement, and mere acknowledgment by a managing director without evidence of transfer does not suffice.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Application dismissed - Appellant claimed financial debt of Rs. 2.20 crores, but only Rs. 60 lakhs acknowledged as outstanding, falling below the threshold of Rs. 1 crore, hence petition not maintainable - Appellant failed to demonstrate the disbursement of Rs. 1.60 crores to Respondent. (Paras 26, 29)

(B) Financial Debt - Definition and Requirements - Financial debt requires actual disbursement against time value of money; acknowledgment by managing director insufficient without evidence of transfer - Section 5(8) emphasizes the necessity of having financial debt in the form of a disbursal to be recognized under IBC. (Paras 26, 28)

Facts of the case:
Appellant sought CIRP against Respondent, citing unpaid financial dues totaling Rs. 2.20 crores, consisting of Rs. 60 lakhs in loans and Rs. 1.60 crores supposedly routed through a medical store owned by the Respondent's director. However, Respondent contested the claims citing lack of documentation and inability to verify the purported transfer of funds.

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence to establish that the amount of Rs. 1.60 crores was received by the Corporate Debtor, and noted that the total debt recognized falls short of the required threshold under the IBC.

Issues: The core issue was the effectiveness of the acknowledgment of debt against the verifiable transfer of funds, alongside whether the total debt amount meets the necessary threshold for initiating CIRP.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that financial debt under IBC must be disbursed to the debtor specifically and that the mere acknowledgment by the managing director does not constitute sufficient grounds to recognize the purported debt unless proven otherwise.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. initiating cirp application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background of financial transactions. (Para 4 , 6 , 7)
3. respondent's contest against the application. (Para 10 , 11)
4. responses to acknowledgement of loans and contested amounts. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. arguments related to acknowledgment and financial records. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. court's findings on disbursement evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. final judgment and implications of financial debt classification. (Para 26 , 28 , 29)

ORDER

1. The Present Application has been filed on 8.12.2020 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016 (hereinafter referred as “I & B Code, 2016”) by the Applicant/Financial Creditor namely, Dr. R.P.S. Bharadwaj seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred as “CIRP”) against the Respondent /Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s Anand Nirogdham Hospital Pvt. Ltd. read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016 in Form 1 containing all the information as required in Part I, II, III, IV and V of the Form.

2. M/s Anand Nirogdham Hospital Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred as the "Respondent/Corporate Debtor") is a private limited company which was incorporated on 28.4.2005 (CIN. U85110UP2005PTC029887) under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Corporate Debtor’s registered office is at A-1, Damodar Colony, Garh Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh- 250005.

3. The Applicant, Dr. Raj Pal Singh Bharadwaj is a Financial Creditor within the meaning of Section 5(7) of the IBC, 2016 (PAN No. AAPPB8303G) and (ID No.719278042054) having his registered office at 3/33, Vishnupuri, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh- 208002.

4. As stated in the application that the Respondent availed multiple financial facilities from the Applicant between 2009 and 2018, the sum total of which amounted to Rs. 2,20,00,000, along with interest at 15% per annum payable on a monthly basis and the said financial facility was periodically extended from time to time. The said amount was repayable on demand or on the failure of payment of 15% interest and the same was paid until January 2019. Thereafter, the Respondent Corporate Debtor through its managing director, Sh. Hari Om Anand informed the Applicant that due to bad financial condition, the Respondent is unable to continue to pay any interest on the financial facility from January 2019 onwards.

5. As regards the repayment of outstanding loan amount, it is stated in the application that the Applicant was given assurance by the Managing Director of the Respondent Company, Sh. Hariom Anand that the same will be repaid at the earliest. However, on insistence of the Applicant, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor later, acknowledged through a letter dated 17.6.2020 the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- with an interest of 15% p.a. to be paid on monthly basis to the Applicant but expressed its inability to pay the interest amount to Applicant/Financial Creditor w.e.f. Feb. 2019 due to bad financial condition. For repayment of the principal amount, the Corporate Debtor issued two cheques one for Rs.1,60,00,000/- being cheque No.000787 and another for Rs.60,00,000/- being cheque No.000790 both drawn on HDFC Bank in favour of the Financial Creditor. However, these two cheques were returned dishonoured by the bank with the reason “funds insufficient”.

6. After multiple failed requests by the Applicant Financial Creditor to the Respondent Creditor to repay the due amount, two demand notices dated 4.9.2020 were issued for repayment of both amounts to the Respondent Corporate Debtor but no response was received and thereafter, even the two cheques issued by the Corporate Debtor, could not be encashed as discussed in previous para.

7. Thereafter, as further stated in the Application that the Applicant sent a legal notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, on 21.9.2020 and demanded the repayment of enti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top