Petition Dismissed: Lack of Evidence, Inadmissible WhatsApp Messages, Failure to Prove Financial Debt

The Petition was dismissed by the Tribunal due to the lack of evidence proving the application was filed before the pecuniary jurisdiction change, inadmissibility of WhatsApp messages as evidence, and the failure to establish the debt as a financial debt under Section 5(8) of IBC.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability and pecuniary jurisdiction of the application.
2. Admissibility of WhatsApp conversation as evidence.
3. Whether the Petitioner can be termed as Financial Creditor and the amount as financial debt under Section 5(8) of IBC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Maintainability and Pecuniary Jurisdiction:
The application was filed before the Tribunal on 10.11.2020. The notification enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction to Rs. 1 Crore was dated 24.03.2020. The Petitioner claimed the application was initially filed before the NCLT, Hyderabad Bench before the notification and later transferred. However, the Petitioner failed to provide evidence of the initial filing. The Tribunal concluded that the notification could not be applied retrospectively and, without proof of prior filing, the application was dismissed due to the disputed amount being less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 1 Crore.

II. Admissibility of WhatsApp Conversation as Evidence:
The Petitioner relied on a WhatsApp message from Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao to prove acknowledgment of debt. The Corporate Debtor objected, citing the Supreme Court judgments in *Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal* and *Anvar P. V. vs. P.K. Basheer*, which mandate that secondary electronic evidence must be accompanied by a Section 65-B certificate. The Tribunal agreed, noting that Rao was not a shareholder or director at the time of the message and that Section 20 of the Companies Act pertains to service of notice, not admissibility of evidence. Hence, the WhatsApp messages were not admitted as evidence.

III. Financial Creditor and Financial Debt:
The Tribunal examined whether the Petitioner could be termed as a Financial Creditor and whether the amount given constituted a financial debt under Section 5(8) of IBC. The Petitioner had previously filed similar petitions which were dismissed by the NCLT, Hyderabad Bench on the grounds that the amount did not qualify as financial debt. The Tribunal reiterated that financial debt must be disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money. The Petitioner failed to prove this, and there was no evidence that the amount was given for the time value of money. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed on these grounds as well.

IV. Result:
The Petition was dismissed due to lack of evidence proving the application was filed before the pecuniary jurisdiction change, inadmissibility of WhatsApp messages as evidence, and failure to establish the debt as a financial debt under Section 5(8) of IBC.

---