Section 7 insolvency needs admissible proof of financial debt and default; cheque dishonour and third-party deposits were insufficient.

An unstamped, undated and unregistered memorandum of understanding could not be relied upon to sustain insolvency proceedings, because an inadmissible instrument cannot found a section 7 claim. A refundable security deposit paid by a separate third party did not establish that the applicant itself was a financial creditor, and the deposit was not shown to be disbursed as a loan or borrowing with time value of money; it therefore was not a financial debt. On that basis, no actionable default was proved, and dishonour of the respondent's cheques did not by itself create financial debt or default for section 7 purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an undated, unstamped and unregistered memorandum of understanding could be relied upon in proceedings under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) whether a refundable security deposit paid through a third party entitled the applicant to maintain the petition as a financial creditor; (iii) whether the refundable security deposit constituted a financial debt; (iv) when default occurred; and (v) whether dishonour of the cheques issued by the respondent established the existence of financial debt and default.

Issue (i): Whether an undated, unstamped and unregistered memorandum of understanding could be relied upon in proceedings under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The memorandum of understanding was found to be undated, unstamped and unregistered. An instrument not duly stamped cannot be acted upon as evidence for the purpose for which it is relied upon, and the Tribunal could not proceed on the basis of such a document to found insolvency proceedings. The document therefore lacked admissibility for the purpose of sustaining the petition.

Conclusion: The memorandum of understanding could not be relied upon to support the petition.

Issue (ii): Whether a refundable security deposit paid through a third party entitled the applicant to maintain the petition as a financial creditor.

Analysis: The payment of Rs. 25 crore was made by Sunteck Realty Ltd., a distinct legal entity, and not by the applicant itself. The record showed that the applicant had not made the disbursement in its own capacity, and therefore the necessary relationship of creditor and debt owed to the applicant was not established for a section 7 petition.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to maintain the petition as a financial creditor on that basis.

Issue (iii): Whether the refundable security deposit constituted a financial debt.

Analysis: A financial debt requires disbursement against the consideration for the time value of money or a transaction having the commercial effect of borrowing. The refundable security deposit was not shown to have been advanced as a loan or borrowing, and the surrounding terms showed it was intended to secure performance in a joint development arrangement. The Tribunal held that mere stipulation of interest or a refundable character did not by itself convert the amount into a financial debt.

Conclusion: The refundable security deposit did not constitute a financial debt.

Issue (iv): When default occurred.

Analysis: Since the underlying claim did not amount to a financial debt and the applicant had not established a maintainable creditor relationship, the asserted default could not be treated as a default within the meaning of the Code for the purpose of section 7. The dates relied upon by the parties did not alter the absence of a legally enforceable financial debt owed to the applicant.

Conclusion: No actionable default under section 7 was established against the respondent.

Issue (v): Whether dishonour of the cheques issued by the respondent established the existence of financial debt and default.

Analysis: The dishonoured cheques were treated as evidentiary of a disputed arrangement, but dishonour by itself did not create a financial debt where the foundational ingredients of section 7 were otherwise absent. The availability of remedies under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 also did not convert the claim into an insolvency-triggering financial debt.

Conclusion: Dishonour of the cheques did not establish the existence of financial debt or default for section 7 purposes.

Final Conclusion: The applicant failed to establish a maintainable section 7 case based on a legally enforceable financial debt and default, and the insolvency petition was not admitted.

Ratio Decidendi: For initiation of corporate insolvency under section 7, the applicant must prove a legally enforceable financial debt and default based on admissible material; an unstamped and unregistered instrument, a third-party payment not made by the applicant, and mere cheque dishonour do not by themselves satisfy those requirements.

---