https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769632 NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging appellant's classification as unsecured financial creditor instead of secured financial creditor. The tribunal held that a Rs.30 crore interest-free deposit made by appellant in corporate debtor could not claim Rs.126.23 crore interest as the investment agreement contained no specific interest provision. Liquidator correctly rejected interest claims and admitted only principal amount. Additionally, appellant failed to provide proof of registered charge with ROC or charge creation documents despite contractual security provisions. Without registered charge or security documentation, appellant could not be classified as secured financial creditor, making unsecured classification appropriate. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Apr 2025 08:33:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769632 NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging appellant's classification as unsecured financial creditor instead of secured financial creditor. The tribunal held that a Rs.30 crore interest-free deposit made by appellant in corporate debtor could not claim Rs.126.23 crore interest as the investment agreement contained no specific interest provision. Liquidator correctly rejected interest claims and admitted only principal amount. Additionally, appellant failed to provide proof of registered charge with ROC or charge creation documents despite contractual security provisions. Without registered charge or security documentation, appellant could not be classified as secured financial creditor, making unsecured classification appropriate. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769632