2024 (1) TMI 342 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

NCLAT upholds rejection of financial creditor claim due to lack of evidence of actual loan disbursement under Section 60(5)

Kesoram Industries Limited Versus Pratim Bayal

Kesoram Industries Limited Versus Pratim Bayal - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Resolution Professional had the authority to re-verify an already admitted claim.2. Whether the Appellant's claim qualifies as a 'financial debt' under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).Summary:1. Authority of the Resolution Professional to Re-verify Admitted Claims:The Appellant argued that once a claim is admitted by an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) or Resolution Professional (RP), the RP cannot re-verify the claim under Regulations 8, 10, and 13 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. The Appellant contended that the RP's powers are limited to revising the admitted claim based on additional information and not re-verifying it. The Resolution Professional, however, maintained that it is his duty under Section 25 of the IBC to verify claims to protect the assets of the corporate debtor. The Tribunal upheld the RP's authority to seek additional documents for substantiating claims, emphasizing that the RP can recheck claims not supported by adequate documentation.2. Qualification of the Appellant's Claim as a Financial Debt:The Appellant's claim was based on an 'Inter Company Loan given from time to time along with accrued interest thereon' and was supported by a balance confirmation and a statement of balance outstanding. The RP rejected the claim due to the absence of sufficient documentation proving the financial debt. The Tribunal noted that the balance confirmation dated 02.05.2022, issued three days before the initiation of CIRP, did not substantiate a financial debt. The Tribunal referred to the definition of 'financial debt' under Section 5(8) of the IBC and the Supreme Court's ruling in 'Anuj Jain vs. Axis Bank Limited,' which emphasized that a financial debt must involve disbursement against the consideration for the time value of money. The Appellant admitted that there was no loan agreement or disbursement, which is essential to prove a financial debt. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant failed to prove any disbursement for the time value of money, and thus, the claim did not qualify as a financial debt.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the RP's decision to reject the Appellant's claim as a financial creditor. The Tribunal ruled that the Appellant failed to substantiate the claim as a financial debt due to the lack of disbursement and supporting documentation.