https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91535 The NCLAT upheld the rejection of the appellant's claim to be recognized as a financial creditor, affirming that the appellant's payments were either brokerage fees or adjustments against flat bookings rather than disbursements constituting financial debt. The appellant had only deposited Rs. 2,00,000 towards a flat booking which was later cancelled, and no actual payment was made for the flats allotted under the Builder Buyer Agreement. The appellant's prior status as an operational creditor remained unchanged throughout the CIRP. The tribunal found no error in the IRP's or Adjudicating Authority's decision, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any financial debt or lending arrangement. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, confirming that the appellant cannot be treated as a financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:33 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91535 The NCLAT upheld the rejection of the appellant's claim to be recognized as a financial creditor, affirming that the appellant's payments were either brokerage fees or adjustments against flat bookings rather than disbursements constituting financial debt. The appellant had only deposited Rs. 2,00,000 towards a flat booking which was later cancelled, and no actual payment was made for the flats allotted under the Builder Buyer Agreement. The appellant's prior status as an operational creditor remained unchanged throughout the CIRP. The tribunal found no error in the IRP's or Adjudicating Authority's decision, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any financial debt or lending arrangement. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, confirming that the appellant cannot be treated as a financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Highlights IBC Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:33 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91535