2022 (4) TMI 1450 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal dismisses claim by Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. as financial creditor due to repaid loan.

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited Versus Arpan Maheshkumar Shah Interim Resolution Professional/ Resolution Professional of Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and vice-versa

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited Versus Arpan Maheshkumar Shah Interim Resolution Professional/ Resolution Professional of Anuradha Real Estate ... Issues Involved:1. Whether Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. (earlier known as DHFL/Applicant) is a Financial Creditor in terms of section 5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. Whether the claim of Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited should be admitted as a financial creditor.3. Examination of discrepancies in the financial statements and books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor.4. The role of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)/Resolution Professional (RP) in verifying and admitting claims.5. The impact of internal communications and transactions between the Corporate Debtor and its sister concern RDPL on the claim.Detailed Analysis:1. Financial Creditor Status:The primary issue is whether Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. (formerly DHFL) qualifies as a Financial Creditor under section 5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Applicant argued that it had provided a loan of INR 100 crores to the Corporate Debtor, which was secured by a registered mortgage and hypothecation. The Applicant disbursed INR 32.50 crores in various tranches, and the Corporate Debtor defaulted on repayments, leading to the loan being classified as a non-performing asset (NPA).2. Claim Admission:The Applicant submitted a claim for INR 48,63,51,064 as a financial debt. However, the Respondent (RP) did not admit the claim, citing discrepancies in the financial records and the assertion that the debt had been repaid by RDPL, a corporate guarantor. The RP pointed out several discrepancies, including the non-compliance with the escrow account condition, lack of monitoring mechanisms, and disbursements made after the account was classified as NPA.3. Discrepancies in Financial Statements:The RP highlighted serious discrepancies in the financial records, including the non-reflection of the loan in the unaudited balance sheet for the year ending 31st March 2021. The RP also noted that RDPL had made a payment of INR 38,51,98,790, which was allegedly towards the loan availed by the Corporate Debtor, but the Applicant claimed it was for a separate loan availed by RDPL.4. Role of IRP/RP:The Tribunal noted that the role of the IRP/RP is not adjudicative but rather to collate and verify claims based on available documents. The RP sought legal opinions and conducted a transaction audit to verify the claim. The transaction audit report pointed out that the Corporate Debtor's debt was repaid by RDPL, and the loan amount was used for purposes other than the sanctioned project, raising concerns about the legitimacy of the transactions.5. Internal Communications and Transactions:The internal communications between the Corporate Debtor and RDPL indicated that RDPL provided financial assistance to the Corporate Debtor, and the amounts lying in the account of DHFL were adjusted towards the repayment of the loan. The Tribunal took note of these communications and the books of accounts, which showed that the outstanding loan was adjusted by RDPL.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the claim of Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited could not be admitted as a financial creditor. The internal correspondence and financial records demonstrated that the loan had been repaid by RDPL, and the Corporate Debtor's balance sheet did not reflect the outstanding liability. The Tribunal dismissed I.A. 182 of 2022, vacated all interim prayers, and disposed of I.A. 308 of 2022.