https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781985 NCLAT held that the transaction between the appellant and the corporate debtor, arising from an MoU for joint development of land, was in the nature of a development/joint venture arrangement and not a "financial debt" under the IBC. The amounts advanced by the appellant were found to be project-related payments towards acquisition and development of plots, with shared rights in the developed area, rather than a loan or financial facility carrying time value of money. Consequently, the Section 7 application for initiation of CIRP was rightly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal was dismissed, with NCLAT clarifying that dismissal does not affect the appellant's right to pursue its pending commercial suit before the HC for monetary recovery. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781985 NCLAT held that the transaction between the appellant and the corporate debtor, arising from an MoU for joint development of land, was in the nature of a development/joint venture arrangement and not a "financial debt" under the IBC. The amounts advanced by the appellant were found to be project-related payments towards acquisition and development of plots, with shared rights in the developed area, rather than a loan or financial facility carrying time value of money. Consequently, the Section 7 application for initiation of CIRP was rightly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal was dismissed, with NCLAT clarifying that dismissal does not affect the appellant's right to pursue its pending commercial suit before the HC for monetary recovery. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781985