NCLAT dismisses appeal against Section 7 admission order for Rs.300 crore loan default, appellant lacks standing

NCLAT dismissed appeal challenging admission of Section 7 application filed by financial creditor against corporate debtor for Rs.300 crores loan default. Appellant, who entered share purchase agreement with corporate debtor's shareholders but failed to acquire shareholding due to ED attachment, lacked locus to challenge admission order. Despite appellant's undertaking in settlement award to repay corporate debtor's loan, both appellant and corporate debtor admitted debt and default. NCLAT held no valid grounds existed to question adjudicating authority's admission order, as debt and default were undisputed facts.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Locus Standi of the Appellant to challenge the order of admission under Section 7.
2. Validity of the Section 7 application amidst pending Section 66 application.
3. Allegations of the loan transaction being a sham or collusive.
4. Impact of the Settlement Award and its enforceability.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of the Appellant to Challenge the Order of Admission under Section 7:

The primary issue was whether the appellant had the legal standing to challenge the order admitting the Section 7 application against the Corporate Debtor. The appellant, who had entered into a Share Purchase Agreement with the shareholders of the Corporate Debtor, argued that their rights would be prejudiced by the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had no locus standi as they were not a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, and the Share Purchase Agreement had not been fructified due to the attachment of land by the Enforcement Directorate. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's own admission of the debt and default by the Corporate Debtor undermined their position to challenge the Section 7 proceedings.

2. Validity of the Section 7 Application amidst Pending Section 66 Application:

The appellant contended that the Section 7 application should not proceed while a Section 66 application, which questioned the legitimacy of the Rs.300 crore loan transaction, was pending. The Tribunal clarified that the purpose of a Section 66 application is distinct and does not impede the proceedings under Section 7. The existence of debt and default was established, and the Tribunal upheld that the mere pendency of a Section 66 application cannot serve as a barrier to the Section 7 application, which was filed to address the insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtor due to the default.

3. Allegations of the Loan Transaction Being a Sham or Collusive:

The appellant alleged that the Rs.300 crore loan transaction was a sham. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in "Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors." to address the concept of sham transactions. However, it found that the disbursement of the loan was not in dispute, and the appellant had acknowledged the loan liability in the Settlement Award. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the loan transaction was genuine, and the Section 7 application was rightly admitted based on the proven debt and default.

4. Impact of the Settlement Award and Its Enforceability:

The appellant highlighted a Settlement Award dated 19.04.2021, where they had undertaken to clear the debt. The Tribunal noted that the Settlement Award acknowledged the loan liability and the appellant's commitment to repay. It was observed that the appellant had the right to enforce the Settlement Award independently and had already initiated execution proceedings. However, this did not affect the validity of the Section 7 application, as the debt and default by the Corporate Debtor were undisputed, and the CIRP was necessary to address the insolvency.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Section 7 application was correctly admitted due to the undisputed debt and default. The appellant was advised to pursue their claims within the CIRP framework or through enforcement of the Settlement Award as per legal procedures.

---