Appeal allowed, order set aside. Claim admitted, CoC reconstituted. Error in reliance on internal docs.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The Resolution Professional was directed to admit the appellant's claim and reconstitute the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority's reliance on internal correspondence and unaudited balance sheets was deemed erroneous, with no evidence of loan discharge. The parties were to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admission and verification of the appellant's claim by the Resolution Professional.
2. Discharge of the loan amount by the Corporate Debtor.
3. Reliance on internal correspondence and unaudited balance sheets.
4. Allegations of collusive transactions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admission and Verification of the Appellant's Claim:
The appellant sanctioned a loan of Rs.100 Crores to the Corporate Debtor on 01.06.2018, disbursing Rs.32.50 Crores between 11.06.2018 to 10.04.2019. The loan account was declared NPA on 01.11.2018. CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 11.08.2021, and the appellant filed a claim of Rs.48,63,51,064/-. Due to delays in admission of the claim, the appellant filed I.A. No. 182 of 2022 seeking directions for the Resolution Professional to admit the claim. The Resolution Professional also filed I.A. No. 308 of 2022 requesting adjudication of the claim by the Adjudicating Authority. Both applications were dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority, prompting the appeal.

2. Discharge of the Loan Amount:
The Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's claim based on the premise that the loan of Rs.32.50 Crores was discharged by the sister concern, Rite Developers Pvt. Ltd. (RDPL). The appellant contended that the loan due and payable by the Corporate Debtor was never discharged. The Adjudicating Authority relied on a Transaction Audit Report and internal correspondence between the Corporate Debtor and RDPL, which were not marked to the appellant. The appellant argued that the loan was reflected in the Corporate Debtor's balance sheets for 2018-19 and 2019-20, and the conclusion that the amount in the DHFL account was adjusted towards the loan was not based on any material evidence.

3. Reliance on Internal Correspondence and Unaudited Balance Sheets:
The Adjudicating Authority relied on internal correspondence dated 27.07.2020 and 18.02.2021 between the Corporate Debtor and RDPL, and the unaudited balance sheet as of 31.03.2021. The correspondence suggested that RDPL's credit amount with DHFL could be adjusted towards the loan amount availed by the Corporate Debtor. However, the appellant argued that these letters did not prove the discharge of the loan. The balance sheet for 31.03.2021 did not reflect the loan, but the appellant contended that the unaudited balance sheet could not be relied upon to prove loan discharge. The Adjudicating Authority's reliance on these documents was deemed inappropriate and unsustainable.

4. Allegations of Collusive Transactions:
The respondent argued that there was collusion between the appellant, Corporate Debtor, and RDPL in the disbursement of the loan, alleging that the Corporate Debtor siphoned off the amount and transferred it to RDPL. The respondent cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors., which discussed sham transactions. However, the Adjudicating Authority did not find the transaction to be collusive. The appellant's claim was not admitted on the ground that the loan was discharged by RDPL, and there was no finding of collusion in the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 was set aside. The I.A. No. 182 of 2022 filed by the appellant was allowed, directing the Resolution Professional to admit the appellant's claim and reconstitute the CoC accordingly. The Adjudicating Authority's reliance on internal correspondence and unaudited balance sheets was found to be erroneous, and there was no material evidence to indicate that the loan was discharged. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

---