Financial debt classification and genuineness of loan transactions in insolvency: claim rejected for diversion and sham transaction

Financial debt characterization and genuineness of loan transactions in insolvency were examined: where an advance was treated as liability in the balance sheet and not as borrowing, it did not qualify as financial debt, and thus was not entitled to recovery as such. The use of funds contrary to loan purposespecifically diversion to purchase a personal Audi A6was held to demonstrate a sham transaction and misappropriation, justifying rejection of the proof of claim. Verification of claims via account records and loan agreement terms supported the view that the claim was not bona fide, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim filed by the appellant based on the 02.04.2007 Loan Agreement qualified as a financial debt and was admissible in the CIRP; (ii) Whether the transactions alleged to have been undertaken by the appellant under the Loan Agreement constituted fraudulent transactions within the meaning of Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's claim qualifies as a financial debt and was admissible in the corporate insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: The claim was evaluated against the Loan Agreement, supporting bank statements, and the audited balance sheet of the corporate debtor. The balance sheet classified the amount of Rs. 48,50,000 under "Other Advances" in the head "Other Long Term Liabilities" and not as a borrowing. Deficiencies in the Loan Agreement (absence of licensed vendor stamp details, serial number, date of purchase of stamp paper, and absence of board resolution authorising execution) and the failure to create any charge or mortgage in favour of the appellant were noted. The appellant's prolonged delay in seeking repayment and lack of contemporaneous steps to enforce the purported debt added to doubts on bonafides. Regulations 10, 12 and 13 of the IBBI Regulations empower verification of claims by the IRP/RP, justifying scrutiny of genuineness.

Conclusion: The claim does not qualify as a financial debt and the rejection of the appellant's claim is upheld; conclusion is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the transactions under the Loan Agreement amount to fraudulent transactions under Section 66 of the IBC.

Analysis: Clause 2 of the Loan Agreement limited application of the funds to land development; contemporaneous bank records show the funds were diverted on the same day to purchase an Audi A6, inconsistent with the stipulated purpose. The Loan Agreement lacked requisite authorisation and indicia of genuineness, and the transactions were found to have adversely impacted the corporate debtor's financial position. The Adjudicating Authority's findings that the documents were inconsistent, lacking authenticity, and indicative of sham transactions were supported by the record.

Conclusion: The transactions are fraudulent within the meaning of Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; conclusion is against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge to the Adjudicating Authority's dismissal of the claim and its holding under Section 66 is without merit; the impugned findings on the genuineness of the Loan Agreement, classification of the amount as an advance, and fraudulent diversion of funds sustain rejection of the claim and the Section 66 finding.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record shows substantive deficiencies in the authenticity and authorisation of a purported loan document, classification of the amount in the debtor's books as an advance rather than a borrowing, and contemporaneous diversion of funds contrary to the contractually stipulated purpose, the Adjudicating Authority (guided by IBBI Regulations empowering verification of claims) may reject the claim as not constituting a financial debt and may hold the transactions to be fraudulent under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---