Financial debt requires allottee disbursement; a flat received for unpaid service dues does not confer financial-creditor status or homebuyer protections.

A flat allotted to settle an unpaid invoice for advertisement services does not create a financial debt because the claimant made no disbursement to the corporate debtor against consideration for the time value of money. The deemed treatment of amounts raised from real-estate allottees applies only where funds have been raised from an allottee, not where property is transferred to discharge service dues. A service provider receiving a flat in such settlement cannot claim the status or protections of a real-estate financial creditor. A substantially delayed claim filed after Committee of Creditors approval of the resolution plan was not entitled to relaxation available to homebuyers.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a claimant whose flat was allotted in adjustment of an unpaid invoice for advertisement services qualifies as a financial creditor holding a financial debt; (ii) Whether delay in filing the claim after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors warranted interference.

Issue (i): Whether a claimant whose flat was allotted in adjustment of an unpaid invoice for advertisement services qualifies as a financial creditor holding a financial debt.

Analysis: Financial debt requires a disbursement against consideration for the time value of money. Although amounts raised from real-estate allottees are deemed to have the commercial effect of borrowing, that deeming treatment applies where an amount has been raised from the allottee. The allotment here compensated an outstanding invoice for advertisement services, without any disbursement by the claimant to the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: The claimant is not a financial creditor and its claim is not a financial debt. This issue is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in filing the claim after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors warranted interference.

Analysis: The claim was filed approximately 676 days after the prescribed last date, after the Committee of Creditors had approved the resolution plan. The claimant, being a commercial entity whose claim arose from services rather than a monetary disbursement for a residential allotment, could not be equated with homebuyers for relaxation in claim collation.

Conclusion: Refusal to condone the delay calls for no interference. This issue is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: A service provider receiving a flat in settlement of service dues cannot invoke the status and protections of a real-estate financial creditor without a qualifying disbursement.

Ratio Decidendi: An allotment made in settlement of unpaid service consideration, absent disbursement by the allottee against consideration for time value of money, does not create a financial debt or confer financial-creditor status.

---