M/S Adhunik Enterprises vs Umesh Gupta Resolution Professional ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 750 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
For a claim to be admitted as a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the financial creditor must prove that the disbursement was made for the time value of money, that is, that the amount advanced carries the character of a loan or financial facility rather than an ordinary commercial or advance payment. A balance confirmation showing that a sum was received by the corporate debtor establishes receipt of the money but does not, by itself, establish that the transaction was a financial debt where the underlying document describes the amount as an advance against property and no material shows that it was disbursed for the time value of money. Loan documents that were not referred to in the claim form, and that were produced only when called for and were unstamped, carry no evidentiary weight in establishing a financial debt.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Adhunik Enterprises ...Appellant Versus Umesh Gupta Resolution Professional Mountain Meadow Holidays Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhigyan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Nimita Kaul and Mr. Umesh Gupta, Advocates for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
22.05.2025 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the adjudicating
authority dated 26.03.2025, by which the application I.A. 738/2025 filed by
the appellant seeking direction to accept the claim as financial creditor has
been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the financial creditor
has given loan to the corporate debtor and a legal notice was also issued for
repayment and the adjudicating authority committed error in rejecting.
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to balance confirmation as well
as the statement of account in support of his case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was no
document produced by the appellant to prove that it was a financial debt. In
the balance sheet, the amount was reflected as advance for property and it
was the document relied in the 'Form-CA' filed by the appellant. Respondent
has also referred to the email of the RP rejecting the claim dated 12.09.2024.
5. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
6. The 'Form-CA' of the appellant is at Page 57 where under the column 5
on basis of which the debt can be sustained only balance sheet of Financial
Year 2017 & 2018 was attached and which was the only document filed along
with the Form. As submitted by counsel for the respondent, in the balance
sheet amount is mentioned as advance for property. By email dated
12.09.2024, the RP has rejected to claim, which is as follows:
"Umesh Gupta ibc.mountainmeadows@gmail.com To: Adhunik Enterprises adhunikenterprises20@gmail.com Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 12:29 PM Dear Sir, Please take note that claim of Rs. 2,77,68,988 filed in Form CA as Financial Creditor in Class is hereby rejected for the following reasons:-
1. You had submitted your audited balance sheet for the F Y 2017-2018 wherein it has shown that you have receivable of Rs. 45,00,000 from the corporate debtor on account of advances against purchases which itself indicate that your debt does not constitute a financial debt.
2. Further, undersigned has pursued the audited financial statements of the corporate debtor and your claim could not be verified from the same.
3. You failed to produce any evidence that any amount of interest or principal was ever paid by the corporate debtor to you.
4. You have also failed to produce any evidence in respect to any email exchange or service of any legal notice ( you have attached two legal notices but no evidence is there with respect to delivery of those notices) sent by you for recovery of your dues from the corporate debtor. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 750 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2894 of 2025 2 of 4 Please take note accordingly.
Regards,"
7. The submission of the appellant is on the basis of balance confirmation
which is filed by the appellant as Annexure A-6 which is as follows:
"MOUNTAIN MEADOW HOLIDAYS (P) LTD 11/77, WEST PUNJABI BAGH, NEAR PUNJABI BAGH CLUB, DELHI - 110026, PAN NO : AACCM9855G ADVANCE RECD AGAINST PROPERTY (AS LOAN) Group Summary 1-Apr-2015 to 31-Mar-2022 Closing Balance Debit Credit ADHUNIK ENTERPIRSES (OUT OF 45,00,000.00 THE BOX) Grand Total 45,00,000.00"
8. The above balance confirmation only indicates about the total amount
due of Rs.45 lakhs, it is not disputed that the amount was given to the
corporate debtor which was also reflected. In the Bank Statement which has
been filed by the appellant an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs has been mentioned.
Be that as it may, the receipt of the amount is not being refuted by the
corporate debtor and the only issue was as to whether it was a financial debt.
For proving a financial debt, the financial creditor is required to prove that
the disbursement was for time value of money. The adjudicating authority
rightly came to the conclusion that there is no material on the record to
indicate that it was a financial debt.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to loan document to
support his submission. The said loan documents were not even referred to
in the claim form which was filed by appellant and RP is right in his
submission that no credence can be given to the said loan agreement which
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 750 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2894 of 2025 3 of 4 was submitted by the appellant when the documents were called for and those
documents were unstamped. We do not find any error in the order of
adjudicating authority.
Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 750 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2894 of 2025 4 of 4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free