Mrs. Vinita Agarwala And Ors. & Ors vs Power Pack Steel Industries Pvt Ltd

[Arising out of Order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in CP (IB) No.150/CTB/2019.]

In the matter of: Vinita Agarwala & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Power Pack Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

For Appellants: Ms. Sonal Shah and Mr. Kushagra Shah, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Saswat K. Acharaya and Mr. Subham Agarwal, Advocates

JUDGMENT

(4th February, 2026)

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2022

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal)

Cuttack Bench, Cuttack rejecting Section 7 application CP (IB)

No.150/CTB/2019 filed by the Appellants. Appellants aggrieved by the

rejection of Section 7 application have come up in this Appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal

are:-

2

2.1. Appellants, ten in numbers claim to have granted short-term business

loan to the Corporate Debtor- Power Pack Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. from

2015 to 2017 totalling Rs.1,73,02,690/- being principal sum of

Rs.1,57,00,000/- along with interest of Rs.16,02,690/-. Corporate Debtor

vide TDS statement being 26AS for the assessment year 2017-18, reflected

deduction of tax at source. The Corporate Debtor had also paid interest

through bank transfer. Appellants have extended different amount to the

Corporate Debtor for example, Appellant No.1 had extended short-term

business loan of Rs.40,00,000/- on 29.06.2014. Similarly, other Appellants

have extended different amounts details of which have been mentioned in

Part IV of Section 7 application. The Corporate Debtor having not returned

the amount, the Appellants demanded the payment in March 2018. After

demand, the Corporate Debtor had also made certain bank transfers

towards interest, amount having not been refunded the Appellant filed

Section 7 application claiming the total principal amount of

Rs.1,57,00,000/- with interest. The date of default was mentioned in tabular

statement reflecting the amount due. Notice was issued by the Adjudicating

Authority to Section 7 application. Counter Affidavit to Section 7 application

was filed by the Corporate Debtor. Corporate Debtor in the Counter Affidavit

admitted the payment received but termed the same as advance payment to

the Corporate Debtor for supply of finished steel rounds on basis of verbal

orders paid to the Corporate Debtor. In the reply, Corporate Debtor also

admitted having paid interest on the amount received after deduction of tax

at source. The amount claimed was denied to be a financial debt. It was

pleaded that in the reply that notice/letter was issued to the Appellant to

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 3

take delivery of the goods to which no response was received. It was pleaded

that no default has been committed. It was also pleaded that the Corporate

Debtor is a private limited company and under Section 73 of the Companies

Act, 2013, a private company has no authority to accept any deposit from

any unrelated individual. Adjudicating Authority heard the parties and by

impugned order rejected Section 7 application taking the view that the

amount received by the Corporate Debtor was in violation of bar contained

in Section 73(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 and transaction being void

under Section 23 of the Contract Act, the claim made by the Appellant is

unenforceable and petition liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the order

rejecting the application, this Appeal has been filed.

3. We have heard Ms. Sonal Shah, Learned Counsel for the Appellants

and Shri Saswat K. Acharaya, learned Counsel for the Respondent-

Corporate Debtor.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants challenging the impugned order

submits that the Appellants having successfully proved financial debt owed

by Corporate Debtor and Corporate Debtor having defaulted in paying back

the amount, the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting Section

7 application. The transaction between Appellants and the Corporate Debtor

was a transaction which is fully covered by definition of financial debt within

the meaning of Section 5(8) of the IBC. The Corporate Debtor paid the

interest from time to time through bank transfer and also has deducted tax

at source on the payment of interest reflected in Form 26AS. Appellant has

successfully proved the financial debt. The Adjudicating Authority

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 4

committed error in rejecting Section 7 application relying on Section 73 of

the Companies Act. The Corporate Debtor having received the short term

business loan for the Appellant was liable to return the amount and Section

73 of the Companies Act cannot be a defence for the Corporate Debtor to not

return the amount. Any alleged violation of Section 73 of the Companies Act

could not be a reason for not admitting Section 7 application when Appellant

has successfully proved financial debt. The payment of the amount was not

denied and reflected from the bank transfer. Payment of interest also proved

that disbursement was for time value of the money. There is no reason why

the term loan to meet the financial requirement of the Corporate Debtor for

its operation which has a commercial effect of borrowing should be excluded

from the purview of a financial debt. The provision of the IBC shall prevail

over the Companies Act, 2013. Claim within the meaning of the IBC means a

right of payment whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed,

disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured. No written

contract was mandatory for proving a financial debt.

5. Counsel appearing for the Respondent refuting the submissions of the

Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority has

proceeded to consider Section 7 application on the pleadings of the

Appellant itself. Adjudicating Authority has rightly come to the conclusion

that any amount received by the company from public is a deposit and when

deposit is done in violation of Section 73(1), the transaction is void. The

deposit in the present case was not covered by acceptance as given in

Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 2014. The submission of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 5

Appellant that amount advanced by the Appellant is not deposit was rightly

not accepted. Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the deposit

includes the receipt of money by way of loan from public. It is submitted

that the amount paid by the Appellant being unenforceable, the Adjudicating

Authority has rightly rejected Section 7 application. It is submitted that no

application under Section 7 can be filed for an amount which in

unenforceable in law and which violates the provisions of Companies Act,

2013.

6. Counsel for both the parties have placed reliance on various

judgments of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court which we shall

refer to while considering the submissions in detail.

7. We need to first notice the case set up by the Appellants in Section 7

application. It is useful to notice Part -4 of the Section 7 application. In Part

IV, particulars of financial debt with respect to each Financial Creditors have

been separately mentioned. It is useful to notice Part IV with regard to

Financial Creditor No.1 i.e. Mrs. Vinita Agarwala- Appellant No.1. In Part-4,

the Appellant has pleaded as follows:-

"PART 4

PARTICULARS OF FINANCIAL DEBT (Financial Creditor 1)

1. TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEBT I. The Corporate Debtor had GRANTED DATE (S) OF approached the Financial DISBURSEMENT Creditor 1 for a short term Business loan for a sum of Rs.

40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) on 29th June, 2017. The said Loan Amount was disbursed by the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor on the said

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 6

date vide a RTGS transfer made to the Corporate Debtor's bank i.e. Federal Bank, IFSC Code No -FDRL0001196, A/c No11960200053249 under UTR No HDFCR52017062998853644.

The terms of the said short term loan was that the principal would be paid on demand and that the principal would carry interest @ 15% per year.

The Corporate Debtor received the said loan amount.

A copy of the Bank account statement reflecting the payment of the loan sum by the Financial creditor to the Corporate debtor loan amount is annexed hereto and is marked with the letter "C1".

The Corporate Debtor promised to repay the loan amount on 31st March, 2018.

On several and repeated requests for payment of the loan amount the Corporate Debtor had promised the Financial Creditor 1 that it would repay the entire loan amount on 30th June, 2018.

The Corporate Debtor has, though belated, paid the interest amount on the loan amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-

after deducting TDS therefrom upto 31st March, 2018. The payment of interest was always by way of a Bank Transfer. It is pertinent to mention herein that though TDS has been deducted by the Corporate Debtor for the amounts paid in 2018-19 the same has not been deposited with the Statutory authorities as such the Financial Creditor has written to the Corporate

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 7

Debtor to take steps in this regard. Copies of the TDS Statement being Form 26AS for the Assessment Year 2017-

2018 and the letter intimating the Corporate Debtor of its non deposit of TDS with the Department are annexed hereto and are collectively marked with the letter "C2".

The Financial Creditor 1 has been ever since March, 2018 demanding repayment of the loan sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- to which the Corporate debtor had promised to repay the said loan sum by 30th June, 2018 but to no avail.

Copies of the letters whereby the Financial creditor 1 has been seeking repayment of the said short term business loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- are all annexed hereto and are collectively marked with the letter "C3".

Instead of repaying the loan or replying to the demand letters the Corporate debtor has on 20th October, 2018 made a Bank Transfer of a sum of Rs.

1,36,110 and a further sum of Rs. 27,221 on 1st November, 2018 which amounts to 18% interest on the principal sum.

The Corporate Debtor has also deducted TDS on a sum of Rs.

1,81,479.

A copy of the ledger account as maintained by the Financial Creditor 1 reflecting the same is annexed hereto and is marked with the letter "C4".

2. AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE The Corporate Debtor owes to IN DEFAULT AND THE the Financial Creditor 1 a sum DATE ON WHICH THE of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees DEFAULT OCCURRED Forty lakhs only) alongwith (ATTACH THE WORKINGS interest @ 15% per annum till FOR COMPUTATION OF payment. The default of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 8

AMOUNT AND DAYS OF said amount has taken place DEFAULT IN TABULAR from the 30th June, 2018 FORM) when the Financial Creditor 1 had sought for repayment of the principal amount and the Corporate debtor had promised repayment of the said loan amount. A copy of the tabular statement reflecting the amount due as on date is annexed hereto and is marked with the letter "C5".

8. The pleading which was made by the Appellant was duly supported by

relevant documents referred to in Part IV. The payment of Rs.40 Lakhs by

Appellant No.1 on 29.06.2017 was made by bank transfer. Bank statement

proving transfer of the amount to the Corporate Debtor was annexed. It was

also pleaded that the business loan was extended which carried interest

@15% per year. It was clearly pleaded that the Corporate Debtor has paid

the interest on the loan amount of Rs.40 Lakhs after deducting TDS. TDS

statement Form 26AS for the assessment year 2017-18 has been referred to.

The Corporate Debtor in its reply filed to Section 7 application has not

denied the receipt of the amount as well as payment of interest after

deduction of tax at source. Corporate Debtor, however, came with the case

on basis of verbal order received from the Appellant, the amount was

advanced for supply of finished steel round. It is useful to notice paragraph

10 of the reply which is as follows:-

"10. The alleged Financial Creditors being engaged in the trade of iron and steel, since long had placed verbal orders with the Corporate Debtor from time to time for supply of finished steel round of different sizes and shape and also made advance payments to the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 9

Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that due to adverse market conditions the manufacturing process of the said finished steel rounds as ordered by the said alleged Financial Creditors was delayed and the Corporate Debtor as per its oral commitment, paid interest on the amount received after deduction of tax at source to the alleged Financial Creditors."

9. The payment of the amount by the Appellant is thus, undisputed. The

Corporate Debtor has also admitted payment of interest and has also

admitted that it has deducted at source by making the payment of interest.

'Financial debt' is defined in Section 5(8) of the IBC. Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC

provides as follows:-

"5. Definitions. -(8) "financial debt" means a debt alongwith interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and includes-

(f) any amount raised under any other transaction, including any forward sale or purchase agreement, having the commercial effect of a borrowing;

[Explanation. -For the purposes of this sub-clause, -

(i) any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing; and

(ii) the expressions, "allottee" and "real estate project" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (d) and (zn) of section 2 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016);]"

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 10

10. The expression 'transaction' has been defined in Section 3(33). The

essential ingredients to prove a financial debt is disbursement against the

consideration for the time value of money. The definition is an inclusive

definition. When the Corporate Debtor having admitted the payment of

interest as well as the receipt of the amount Appellant has successfully

proved that disbursement was for the time value of the money.

11. Now we need to look into the reasons and grounds given by the

Adjudicating Authority for rejecting Section 7 application. Adjudicating

Authority in the impugned order has relied on Section 73(1) of the

Companies Act. Adjudicating Authority relying on Section 23 of the Contract

Act, 1872 came to the conclusion that transaction entered by the Financial

Creditor as projected by them with the Corporate Debtor are void and when

the transaction are void, no right accrues upon any person, hence, the claim

of the Financial Creditor is unenforceable and petition is liable to the

dismissed. In paragraphs 12, 13, 18, 19 & 20, following has been held:-

"12. In this case as per the averments of the petitioners that the respondent/corporate debtor received the loans from the petitioners. If so, it is done in violation of the bar provided under section 73(1) of the Companies Act 2013. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 runs as follows:

"23. What consideration and objects are lawful, and what not.

The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless-it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 11

is fraudulent; or involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.

In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

13. According to section 23 of contract Act 1872 any transaction or contract entered between the parties are void if the said transaction is forbidden by any law or if such transaction is permitted it would defeat any provision of law. In our case according to the petitioners/Financial creditors the short-term loans advanced by them were received by the Respondent/corporate debtor. This is against the bar provided under section 73(1) R/w 2(31) of The Companies Act 2013, further if this transaction is permitted it will lead to defeat the Section 73(1) of The Companies Act, so the transaction or contract as averred by the petitioners in the Petition is Void as Provided under Section 23 of Indian Contract Act 1873.

18. As referred supra in view of the definition of word "deposit" defined in section 2(31) of the Companies Act 2013 and in Rule 2 (1)(c) of The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 2014, deposit includes the receipt of money by way of loan also and from public means from any person or persons in the country which includes the petitioners. In the situation the meek defence taken on the petitioner side is unsustainable.

19. For the reasons stated above the transactions or contracts entered by the financial creditors as projected by them with the corporate debtor are void. When the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 12

transactions are void, no right accrues upon any person in pursuance of the void transactions, in consequence the claim made by the financial Creditors in the petition is unenforceable and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

20. In view of the conclusion arrived on the admitted case of the petitioners/Financial Creditors that the transactions/contracts entered by the financial creditors with corporate debtor is void, there is no need to decide the character of amount advanced by them.

In fine the petition is DISMISSED."

12. Thus, the basis of rejection of application under Section 7 is Section

73(1).

13. Chapter V of the Companies Act deals with 'acceptance of deposits by

companies'. Section 73 contains a 'prohibition on acceptance of deposits

from public'. Section 73(1) & (2) provides as follows:-

"73. Prohibition on acceptance of deposits from public. (1) On and after the commencement of this Act, no company shall invite, accept or renew deposits under this Act from the public except in a manner provided under this Chapter:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a banking company and non-banking financial company as defined in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) and to such other company as the Central Government may, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, specify in this behalf.

(2) A company may, subject to the passing of a resolution in general meeting and subject to such rules as may be prescribed in consultation with the Reserve

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 13

Bank of India, accept deposits from its members on such terms and conditions, including the provision of security, if any, or for the repayment of such deposits with interest, as may be agreed upon between the company and its members, subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions, namely:-

(a) issuance of a circular to its members including therein a statement showing the financial position of the company, the credit rating obtained, the total number of depositors and the amount due towards deposits in respect of any previous deposits accepted by the company and such other particulars in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed;

(b) filing a copy of the circular along with such statement with the Registrar within thirty days before the date of issue of the circular;

[(c) depositing, on or before the thirtieth day of April each year, such sum which shall not be less than twenty per cent. of the amount of its deposits maturing during the following financial year and kept in a scheduled bank in a separate bank account to be called deposit repayment reserve account;]

* * *

(e) certifying that the company has not committed any default in the repayment of deposits accepted either before or after the commencement of this Act or payment of interest on,

[such deposits and where a default had occurred, the company made good the default and a period of five years had lapsed since the date of making good the default;] and

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 14

(f) providing security, if any for the due repayment of the

amount of deposit or the interest thereon including the creation of such charge on the property or assets of the company:

Provided that in case where a company does not secure the deposits or secures such deposits partially, then, the deposits shall be termed as "unsecured deposits" and shall be so quoted in every circular, form, advertisement or in any document related to invitation or acceptance of deposits."

14. We also need to notice Section 76 which provides for 'acceptance of

deposits from public by certain companies'. Section 76 is as follows:-

"76. Acceptance of deposits from public by certain companies. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 73, a public company, having such net worth or turnover as may be prescribed, may accept deposits from persons other than its members subject to compliance with the requirements provided in sub- section (2) of section 73 and subject to such rules as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, prescribe:

Provided that such a company shall be required to obtain the rating (including its networth, liquidity and ability to pay its deposits on due date) from a recognised credit rating agency for informing the public the rating given to the company at the time of invitation of deposits from the public which ensures adequate safety and the rating shall be obtained for every year during the tenure of deposits:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 15

Provided further that every company accepting secured deposits from the public shall within thirty days of such acceptance, create a charge on its assets of an amount not less than the amount of deposits accepted in favour of the deposit holders in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed.

(2) The provisions of this Chapter shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the acceptance of deposits from public under this section."

15. The Rules have been framed namely-- 'Companies (Acceptance of

Deposits) Rules, 2014". 'Deposit' has also been defined in Section 2(31) of

the Companies Act which is as follows:-

"2. Definitions.-- (31) "deposit" includes any receipt of money by way of deposit or loan or in any other form by a company, but does not include such categories of amount as may be prescribed in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India;"

16. Rule 2(c) also defines "deposit". From the definition as above, it is clear

that money by way of deposit or loan or in any other form, by a company is

covered with definition of deposit. We thus, need to proceed on the basis

that amount which was paid by Appellants, the Financial Creditors to the

company Corporate Debtor was a deposit. The factum of receipt of the

amount is not denied. Section 76 contains provisions which provide for

acceptance of deposits from public by certain companies. The Companies

Act does not altogether prohibit acceptance of deposit by companies rather

Companies Act regulate the manner and procedure for acceptance of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 16

deposits by company. Section 76A provides for 'punishment for

contravention of section 73 or section 76'. Section 76A provides as follows:-

"76A. Punishment for contravention of section 73 or section 76.- Where a company accepts or invites or allows or causes any other person to accept or invite on its behalf any deposit in contravention of the manner or the conditions prescribed under section 73 or section 76 or rules made thereunder or if a company fails to repay the deposit or part thereof or any interest due thereon within the time specified under section 73 or section 76 or rules made thereunder or such further time as may be allowed by the Tribunal under section73,-

(a) the company shall, in addition to the payment of the amount of deposit or part thereof and the interest due, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than [one crore rupees or twice the amount of deposit accepted by the company, whichever is lower] but which may extend to ten crore rupees; and

(b) every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to [seven years and with fine] which shall not be less than twenty-five lakh rupees but which may extend to two crore rupees,

* * *

Provided that if it is proved that the officer of the company who is in default, has contravened such provisions knowingly or wilfully with the intention to deceive the company or its shareholders or depositors or creditors or tax authorities, he shall be liable for action under section 447.]"

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 17

17. The deposits which were received by company prior to under the

Companies Act, 1956 were also required to be repaid and the deposits which

are taken by the company in accordance with provisions of Companies Act

and the Rules is also required to be repaid with. Rule 19 of the 2014 Rules

also clearly contemplate acceptance of deposits from public by eligible

companies. Rule 19 is as follows:-

"19. Applicability of sections 73 and 74 to eligible companies.- Pursuant to provisions of sub-section (2) of section 76 of the Act, the provisions of sections 73 and 74 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to acceptance of deposits from public by eligible companies.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule, it is hereby clarified that in case of a company which had accepted or invited public deposits under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and rules made under that Act (hereinafter known as "Earlier Deposits") and has been repaying such deposits and interest thereon in accordance with such provisions, the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 74 of the Act shall be deemed to have been complied with if the company complies with requirements under the Act and these rules and continues to repay such deposits and interest due thereon on due dates for the remaining period of such deposit in accordance with the terms and conditions and period of such Earlier Deposits and in compliance with the requirements under the Act and these rules;

Provided further that the fresh deposits by every eligible company shall have to be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the Act and these rules"

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 18

18. Acceptance of deposits in accordance with the provisions of the

Companies Act and repayment of deposits as per the procedure is statutory

scheme under the Companies Act. Section 74 clearly provides for 'repayment

of deposits, etc., accepted before commencement of the Act'. Thus, the

acceptance of deposits by companies has to be in accordance with the

procedure prescribed and any company which accepts the deposits in

contravention of the provision of Section 73 and Section 76 or Rules made

thereunder or company fails to repay the deposits, it is liable to be punished

under Section 76A. In the present case, the company is shielding itself from

any liability to repay the amount received on the ground that deposits

received by the company was not in accordance with Section 73.

Adjudicating Authority committed error in holding the deposit contrary to

the provisions of the Companies Act even without referring to Section 76 of

the Companies Act where acceptance of deposit from public by certain

company is as admitted fact.

19. IBC has been enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to

reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate person in a time

bound manner for maximisation of the value of the assets by such person.

Right has been given to Financial Creditor under Section 7 to initiate

proceeding when default is committed by the Corporate Debtor. Insolvency

resolution on application filed by Financial Creditor and Operational

Creditor is with the object of resolution of the corporate debtor. When the

facts brought on the record by Financial Creditor indicate that amount

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 19

having received by the Corporate Debtor has not been refunded, the fact

indicates that the Corporate Debtor may require resolution.

20. When the Financial Creditor is able to prove that the transaction

which has been entered by financial creditor with the corporate debtor is a

financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the IBC and default has

been committed by the corporate debtor, relying on Section 73 and rejection

of application under Section 7 cannot be held to be sustainable. We need to

notice the definition of 'claim' as defined under Section 3(6) which is as

follows:-

"3. Definitions. -(6) "claim" means -

(a) a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured;

(b) right to remedy for breach of contract under any law for the time being in force, if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured or unsecured;"

21. When we look into the definition of the claim it is right of payment

whether disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured and

Section 11 defines the 'debt' in which is in reference in respect of a claim

which is due. Even if the claim which was raised by the Appellant is

disputed that cannot be ground to reject the application. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Innoventive Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank and

Anr.- (2018) 1 SCC 407" while pointing out a difference has held that the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 20

Adjudicating Authority has merely to see the records of the information

utility and the evidence produced by the financial creditor to satisfy itself

that a default has occurred. It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so

long as the debt is due. In paragraph 30 of the judgment, following has been

held:-

"30. On the other hand, as we have seen, in the case of a corporate debtor who commits a default of a financial debt, the adjudicating authority has merely to see the records of the information utility or other evidence produced by the financial creditor to satisfy itself that a default has occurred. It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is "due" i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date. It is only when this is proved to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the adjudicating authority may reject an application and not otherwise."

22. Learned Counsel for the Respondent referring to above paragraph 30

has raised a contention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said

judgment has used expression "payable unless interdicted by some law or

has not yet become due". The submission is advanced that Section 73

interdicts the payment to the Appellant, hence, by virtue of above judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Adjudicating Authority has rightly refused to

admit Section 7 application. The above submission raised by Respondent

does not impress us. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has used the

expression "payable unless interdicted by some law", interdicted by some

law is obviously refers to payability. Clear example where the said

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 21

expression has come into play shall be when the claim amount is barred by

time. Section 10A of the IBC is another example where claim can be held to

be interdicted by law. Insertion of Section 10A clearly prohibited filing of

Section 7 application for any default which occurred during the prohibited

period. Section 73 of the Companies Act cannot be read to mean a law which

interdict the payment to financial creditor.

23. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of his submission has

placed reliance on various judgments where this Tribunal has interfered

with the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting Section 7 application.

Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Tribunal in "Mohanlal

Dhakad vs. BNG Global India Limited- 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 84". In

the above case, the Adjudicating Authority has rejected Section 7 application

relying on Sections 73, 74 & 76 of the Companies Act along with Companies

(Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 2014 which order was challenged by financial

creditor. This Tribunal in the above case has held that the deposit and loan

may not have any significant difference but when the Appellant is a financial

creditor and default has been proved, the Adjudicating Authority committed

error in rejecting the application. In paragraph 2 of the order, this Tribunal

has noticed the order of Adjudicating Authority rejecting Section 7

application. In paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the judgment, this Tribunal took

the following view:-

"32. There is no second opinion of an important fact that distinction between "deposits" and "loans" may not be a significant factor for interpreting the word, "deposit". One cannot ignore a candid fact that "maturity of claim",

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 22

"default of claim" or "invocation of guarantee" has no nexus in regard to the filing of claim before the "interim resolution professional" under section 18(1)(b) of the "Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code" and the "resolution professional" under section 25(2)(e) of the Code.

33. As per the "Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014", the term "deposit" is defined under rule 2(1)(c) in an inclusive fashion. The meaning of "deposit"

is elongated by covering receipts of money in any other form. For approaching the jurisdiction of the "Tribunal" as per section 74(2) of the "Companies Act, 2013", even a partial failure by the company to repay the deposit was sufficient.

34. Be that, as it may, in the light of detailed qualitative and quantitative discussions, resting on the fact that the "respondent"/"corporate debtor" under the "recurring investment plan" had assured to provide the investors' interest on their investment sum along with the investment amount, for the "time value of money" (of course based on the amounts of investments made by the investors) and in view of the fact that the "respondent"/"corporate debtor" failed in its commitment to offer the allotment and/or the possession of the "plots of land" as promised by it or pay the assured returns, or repay the sums collected by it along with interest on the maturity of the schemes, etc., this "Tribunal" comes to a consequent conclusion that the "appellant's" position is that of a "financial creditor" as per section 5(7) read with section 5(8) of the "Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code"

and that there is default in payment of the accepted amounts by the "respondent"/"corporate debtor". In short, the "respondent"/"corporate debtor" squarely

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 23

comes within the ambit of definition of "financial debt"

and the contra conclusions arrived at by the "Adjudicating Authority" (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-V) to the effect that "the amount which the applicants deposited does not come under the definition of 'debt' and further that it was unable to accept the contention of the applicants that there was a default in payment of debt, are incorrect, invalid the same is set aside by this 'Tribunal' to secure the ends of justice. Likewise, the other observation made by the 'Adjudicating Authority' in the impugned order that the applicants are at liberty to file an appropriate application under Chapter V of the Companies Act, 2013 is also set aside. Resultantly, the "appeal" succeeds."

24. Another judgment relied by the Appellant is "Satish Chand Gupta

vs. Servel India Private Limited- 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 9" where

Section 7 application was rejected relying on Section 73 of the Companies

Act, this Tribunal has set aside the order holding that when Corporate

Debtor had accepted the amounts and credited the interest, the Appellant

was Financial Creditor and there was default. In paragraph 42, following

was held:-

"42. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the fact that the Respondent/Corporate Debtor had accepted certain amounts from the Appellant and credited the interest in a consistent manner against such amounts for a continuous period of five years, as pleaded by the Appellant and also that the 'Corporate Debtor' had accepted money from the Appellant against the payment of interest and bearing in mind the payment

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 24

of interest on the amounts borrowed by the Respondent Company is nothing but a consideration for the time value of money and in as much as the 'interest' is the compensation paid by the borrower to the lender for using the lender's money over a period of time, this Tribunal comes to an inevitable and inescapable conclusion that the Appellant's status is that of a 'Financial Creditor' as per Section 5(7) read with Section 5(8) of the Code and that there is a default in payment of the accepted amounts by the Respondent/CD and in short, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor comes within the purview of the definition of 'Financial Debt'. Viewed in that perspective, the contra view taken by the Adjudicating Authority in coming to the conclusion that the application filed by the Appellant/Financial Creditor is not maintainable for initiation of Section 7 of the Code is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law, as held by this Tribunal, to prevent an aberration of justice. Consequently, the Appeal succeeds."

25. Another judgment which has been relied by the Appellant is judgment

of this Tribunal in "Pancham Studios Pvt. Ltd. vs. Konark Aquatics &

Exports Pvt. Ltd.- 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1148". In the above case,

Section 7 application was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. It was held

that the Corporate Debtor cannot take the shelter of Section 186 of the Act

to deny its liability to return the amount. In paragraphs 22 to 26, following

was held:-

"22. But in no case the debt advanced by the Company to a corporate body can be held to be unrecoverable only because of the reason that there

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 25

was a irregularity in advancement of the loan which became a debt to a third party or in other words the CD cannot take the shelter of Section 186 of the Act to deny its liability to return the amount taken by it being a corporate body which is due and payable.

23. The decision in the case of M. Sai Eswara Swamy (Supra) is not applicable to the present controversy because in that case the basic issue was as to whether the company petition was filed by the person without having the authority of the board through resolution. In this regard, the finding has been recorded in the said case is that "thus, we are affirmed the finding of Ld. Tribunal that there is no board resolution authorising the petitioner to file the petition, therefore, the petition is not maintainable". It has also held that with the aforesaid we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the petition is not maintainable, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The said appeal was dismissed summarily and no reasoning was given in this regard that if there is violation of Section 186 then the CD can take the plea that the transaction has become void and is not liable to repay the same.

24. The argument of the Respondent that a written financial contract is necessary for providing debt has been negated by this Court in the case of Agarwal Polysacks Ltd. (Supra) in which the following observations has been made:--

11. We need to test the submission of learned counsel for the Respondent that the written financial contract is necessary for proving debt. A financial

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 26

contract supported by financial statements as evidence of the debt is one of the documents contemplated in Regulation 8(2) but that is not exclusive requirement for proving existence of debt.

Financial contract thus can very well be furnished to prove the financial debt but a plain reading of Regulation 8(2) indicate that it is not mandatory that existence of financial debt has to be proved by a financial contract. For example : records available with an information utility can very well be used as proof for existence of financial debt. Further, financial statements showing that the debt has not been paid is also one of the clauses in Regulation 8(2) by which existence of debt can be proved.

25. The Appellant has already proved on record about the amount which was disbursed as it has not been disputed and that the said amount is a debt fully reflected in its balance sheet continuously as an unsecured loan and had not been paid despite the fact that repeated demands were made through five demand notices, therefore, it falls within the definition of default on the part of the Respondent.

26. Hence, once the debt and default has been proved, therefore, the Tribunal has committed a patent error in dismissing the application filed under Section 7 of the Code and consequently, the present appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set aside though without any order as to costs.

I. As, if any, are hereby closed."

26. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the judgment of this

Tribunal in "Pancham Studios Pvt. Ltd." (supra) is engaging attention of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 27

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Diary No. 43303/ 2025 filed by

Konark Aquatics and Exports Pvt. Ltd. where notices has been issued and

following order has been passed on 13.10.2025:-

"1. Delay condoned.

2. Issue notice, returnable on 17.11.2025.

3. In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status."

27. Another judgment relied by Appellant is judgment of this Tribunal in

"Arun Kumar Kedia vs. J.P. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.- 2025 SCC

OnLine NCLAT 1372" where also Adjudicating Authority admitted Section 7

application. Argument was raised before this Tribunal that advance by the

Corporate Debtor was not in accordance with Section 186 of the Companies

Act, hence, the application could not have been admitted. In paragraphs 13

to 17, following was held:-

"13. Coming to the next submission advanced by the CD that loan extended was not in accordance with Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013, the said issue has been considered by the Adjudicating Authority from paragraphs 39 to 45. It is useful to notice paragraph 41 of the impugned order, which is as follows:

"41. Thus, provision of Section 186 explicitly provides that a Company cannot advance loan to any person or body corporate exceeding 60% of its paid-up share capital, free reserves and securities premium account or one hundred per cent of its free reserves and securities premium

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 28

account, whichever is more. In the instant case, the loan amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Lakh Only) is provided in the year 2015; however, from the balance sheet of the Financial Creditor, it evident that in the year 2015, the paid up capital of the Financial Creditor was Rs. 66,42,500/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lakh Forty Two Thousands Five Hundred Only) with Reserve and Surplus amounting to Rs. 1,246,422,050/- (Rupees One Hundred Twenty Four Crores Sixty Four Lakhs Twenty Two Thousands and Fifty Only). Thus, in the year 2015, the total shareholders fund were amounting to Rs. 1,253,064,550/- (Rupees One Hundred Twenty Five Crores Thirty Lakhs Sixty Four Thousands and Five Hundred Fifty Only).

14. The Adjudicating Authority has, thus, returned a finding that loan extended by the Financial Creditor to the CD was not in violation of Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013.

15. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal Pancham Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 406 of 2024. In the above case, application under Section 7 filed by the Financial Creditor was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. One of the submissions raised before the Adjudicating Authority was that loan was in violation of Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013. The submission regarding violation of Section 186 has been noticed and this Tribunal has allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of Adjudicating Authority dismissing Section 7

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 29

application. In paragraph 21 of the order, this Tribunal has made following observation:

"21. Much emphasis has been laid by the Respondent as well as the Tribunal about non- adherence to the provision of Section 186 of the Act. Section 186(2)(a) of the Act says that "no company can directly or indirectly give any loan exceeding 60% of its paid up share capital free reserves and securities premium account of its free reserves and securities premium account whichever is more".

However, Section 186(13) provides for punishment for violation of the provisions of the section. It provides that "the Company shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 25000 but which may extend to Rs. 5 lakh and officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 25000 but which may extend to Rs. 1 lakh."

16. This Tribunal held that CD cannot take the shelter of Section 186 to deny its liability to return the amount taken by it being a corporate body which is due and payable. In paragraph-22 of the judgment, following has been observed:

"22. But in no case the debt advanced by the Company to a corporate body can be held to be unrecoverable only because of the reason that there was a irregularity in advancement of the loan which became a debt to a third party or in other words the CD cannot take the shelter of Section 186 of the Act to deny its liability to

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 30

return the amount taken by it being a corporate body which is due and payable."

17. The above judgment of this Tribunal in no manner supports the submission of the Appellant, rather, this Tribunal has rejected the said challenge raised by the CD in the said case."

28. Some of the above judgments which relied by the Appellant clearly

supports the submission of the Appellant that despite there being argument

of non-compliance of provision of Sections 73 and 186 of the Companies Act,

Section 7 application was admitted.

29. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on the judgment of

this Tribunal in "M Sai Eswara Swamy vs. Siti Vision Digital Media Pvt.

Ltd.- 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 3444". In the above case, where Section 7

application was rejected on the ground that no board resolution was passed

authorising the petitioner a 50% shareholder to file the petition. The Appeal

was dismissed holding that Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that

petition is not maintainable. In paragraphs 1 and 2, following was stated:-

"Heard Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant. He submits that the Appellant is a Director and 50% Shareholder of both the Financial Creditor Companies i.e. Vision Infotel India Pvt. Ltd. and Vision Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. There is a deadlock in the Financial Creditor Company Mr. K Siva Rama Krishna Kancharla who holds remaining 50% share of the Financial Creditors Companies is a Managing Director and his wife holds 4% shareholding in the Respondent Company (Corporate Debtor). The Appellant has requested several times to Mr. K Siva

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 31

Rama Krishna Kancharla to sign the board resolution to initiate legal proceedings against the Respondent Company but he refused to sign the Board Resolution. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the Application under Section 7 of the IBC on the ground that no board resolution authorizing the Petitioner (Appellant herein) to file the Petition is filed alongwith the Petition. In this regard, it is submitted that Shareholder/Director of the Company can initiate action on behalf of the Company if the same is in the interest of the Company and the Board is not pursuing the same. As per doctrine of derivative action the Appellant being 50% shareholder and director of the Petitioner Company can maintain the Petition under Section 7 of the IBC. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Onyx Musicabsolute Com Pvt. Ltd. v. Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 636, Judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Star Light Real e-State (Ascot) Morisus Pvt. Ltd. v. Jagriti Trade Services Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2018 Cal 173 and Federal Court Reports Dr. Satya Churn Law v. Rameshwar Prasad Bajoria, Civil Appeal No. LXV of 1949

2. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submits that Ld. Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the Petition under Section 7 of the IBC on the other ground that no Board Resolution was passed to advance loan under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is submitted that such board resolution is not required when the Corporate Debtor in his balance sheet acknowledging the debt. Thus, Ld. Adjudicating Authority has

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 32

erroneously dismissed the Petition as not maintainable."

30. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the above judgment, this Tribunal held:-

"7. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has also held that no Board Resolution was filed in regard to advance loan to Corporate Debtor Company as required under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013. In this regard, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Corporate Debtor Company in his balance sheet acknowledged the debt. Therefore, such resolution is not required to maintain the petition under Section 7 of the IBC. We are not convinced with this argument. We found no flaw in the findings of Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

8. With the aforesaid, we are of the view that Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the Petition is not maintainable. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

Thus, the Appeal is dismissed summarily without notice to the Respondent. No order as to costs."

31. In the above case, this Tribunal held that the application not

maintainable on behalf of 50% shareholder there being no board resolution.

In paragraph 5 of the judgment, following has been observed:-

"5. After hearing Ld. Sr. Counsels for the parties, we have considered the submissions, undisputedly there is no board resolution authorizing the appellant to file the petition under Section 7 of the IBC and filed this Appeal as there is deadlock in the Financial Creditors Company."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 33

32. The above judgment was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

vide its order passed on 28.01.2022 in Civil Appeal No.7132 of 2021. The

above judgment in no manner supports the case of the Respondent.

33. Another judgment relied by the Respondent is "Acute Daily Media P.

Ltd. vs. Rockman Advertising and Marketing (India) Ltd.- 2025 SCC

OnLine NCLAT 159". Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that in

above case also this Tribunal has referred to Section 76 and Section 186 of

the Companies Act. The above judgment was a case where this Tribunal was

considering challenged to an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority

allowing an IA under Section 65 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. In

paragraph 11 of the judgment, this Tribunal made following observations:-

"11. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records carefully. The short question before us is whether in the facts of the present case, there is sufficient evidence before the Adjudicating Authority to establish that the section 7 application was filed collusively and with mala fide intention by the appellants which was good enough to attract section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and consequential recall of the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor."

34. While considering challenge to order under Section 65 of the IBC

certain observations have been made with regard to action taken by the

companies. Reliance has been made on paragraph 24 of the judgment by the

Respondent which provides as follows:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 34

"24. Pointing out another incidence of infraction of the Companies Act, it was submitted that the corporate debtor being a private company was not eligible under section 76 of the Companies Act, 2013 to accept any loan from the appellants as they were not members or shareholders of the corporate debtor. This further goes to expose the fraud played upon the Adjudicating Authority into believing normal business entries to be loan entries. Further, under section 186(2)(a) of the Companies Act, a company cannot grant a loan exceeding 60 per cent. of its paid-up share capital. Appellant No. 1 had paid-up share capital of only Rs. 10 lakhs but had allegedly given a loan amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs. Moreover, there is no special board resolution authorising the said loan exceeding the limits during the year 2016. This also shows that these transactions were not loan transactions but transactions undertaken with a different motive but given the garb of a loan transaction."

35. The observations made in above paragraph where obviously in

considering the argument that intention under Section 7 application was

collusive and malafide. The issue which has arisen in the present Appeal

were not subject matter of consideration in the above case "Acute Daily

Media P. Ltd." (supra) and the said case does not help the Respondent in

any manner.

36. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also relied on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 35

vs. Srei Equipment Finance Limited & Ors.- (2021) 4 SCC 435" wherein

paragraph 16 of the judgment, following was held:-

"16. Having heard the learned counsel for all the parties, it is important to restate a few fundamentals. Given the object of the IBC as delineated in paras 25 to 28 of Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17] ["Swiss Ribbons"], it is clear that the IBC is a special statute dealing with revival of companies that are in the red, winding up only being resorted to in case all attempts of revival fail. Vis-à-vis the Companies Act, which is a general statute dealing with companies, including companies that are in the red, the IBC is not only a special statute which must prevail in the event of conflict, but has a non obstante clause contained in Section 238, which makes it even clearer that in case of conflict, the provisions of the IBC will prevail."

37. In the present case, the respondent company is trying to take benefit

of its breach in accepting deposits. No one can be allowed to take benefit of

its own wrong.

38. Thus, in view of the above discussions and our conclusion, we are of

the view that when Financial Creditor has successfully proved the financial

debt and has raised a claim against the Corporate Debtor who defaulted in

payment of debt, Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting Section

7 application relying on Section 73 of the Companies Act. The order passed

by the Adjudicating Authority is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022 36

39. In view of the above observations and our conclusion, we allow the

Appeal in following manner:-

(I) The order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority rejecting Section 7 application is set aside. Adjudicating

Authority is directed to admit Section 7 application and pass

consequential order after four weeks from today.

(II) It shall be open for the Corporate Debtor to discharge the debt

within the period of 30 days from today and file proof of discharge of

debt before the Adjudicating Authority and in event, Adjudicating

Authority is satisfied that the Corporate Debtor has discharged the

debt, the said fact shall be taken into consideration by the

Adjudicating Authority while passing the consequence order.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) New Delhi

Anjali

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 436 of 2022