TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B Code'. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the amount disbursed by the Appellant submitted that the same was a 'long term loan' for the consideration of time value of money. 3. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the amount paid by the Appellant does not come within the meaning of 'Financial Debt' as defined under Section 5(8). Reliance has also been made on certain decisions of this Appellate Tribunal including "Dr. B.V.S. Lakshmi vs. Geometrix Laser Solutions Private Limited - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 38 of 2017" decided on 22nd December, 2017 and "Vishwa Nath Singh vs. Visa Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 234-235 of 2017" decided on 13th December, 2017 wherein on the basis of the record this Appellate Tribunal held that Appellants therein do not come within the meaning of 'Financial Creditor'. 4. The case of the appellant is that the Appellant advanced loan of Rs. 80,00,000 (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) to the 'Corporate Debtor' between 26th March, 2011 and 16th April, 2013 on the basis of mutual discussion and arrangement with Mr. Aman Preet Singh Bawa, Promoter/Direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atkar Air Cargo Services Private Limited". Hence, there is no question of the alleged demand as being made by the Appellant from the Respondent Company. 7. Further, it was agreed between the Appellant, his son namely Mr. Gursimran Singh Lamba and other promoters of the abovementioned group of companies that the air cargo business which was to be run under the name and style of Satkar Air Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. shall be jointly run with Mr. Gursimran Singh Lamba being one of the Promoter Director and shareholder of the Company. Upon incorporation of the Respondent Company, Mr. Gursimran Singh Lamba was inducted as one of the director in the company and was given the responsibility of independently running the business of the company through the company office situated at Mahipalpur, New Delhi. However, Mr. Gursimran Singh Lamba mishandled the said business and as a result, the Respondent Company suffered huge losses. In fact, many of the customers of the Respondent Company refused to pay the outstanding dues by citing not only negligence and carelessness but also on the ground of poor services and gross misbehaviour on the part of Mr. Gursimran Singh Lamba, who was handling ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; As at 31st March, 2016 As at 31st March, 2015 Particulars Non-Current Current Maturities Total Non-Current Current Maturities Total Term Loan From Banks- ICICI Bank Ltd. secured 61,539.00 76,443.00 1,37,982.00 1,34,107.00 3,71,928.00 5,06,035.00 Loans and advances from related parties 61,539.00 76,443.00 1,37,982.00 1,34,107.00 3,71,928.00 5,06,036.00 Harmandeep Singh Khurana Unsecured 50,00,000.00 0.00 50,00,000.00 50,00,000.00 0.00 50,00,000.00 Ravinder Pal Singh Lamba Unsecured 65,00,000.00 0.00 65,00,000.00 65,00,000.00 0.00 65,00,000.00 The above Amount includes 1,15,00,000.00 0.00 1,15,00,000.00 1,15,00,000.00 1,15,00,000.00 Secured Borrowings 61,539.00 76,443.00 1,37,982.00 1,34,107.00 3,71,928.00 5,06,035.00 Unsecured Borrowings 1,15,00,000.00 0.00 1,15,00,000.00 1,15,00,000.00 0.00 1,15,00,000.00 Amount Disclosed under the Head "Other Current Liabilities (Note No. 8) (76,443.00) (76,443.00) (3,71,928.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deration for time value of money and the 'Corporate Debtor' is shown as 'long-term borrowings' for running the company. For the reason aforesaid, we hold that the appellant comes within the meaning of 'Financial Creditor', as the amount disbursed comes within the meaning of 'Financial Debt'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank - (2018) 1 SCC 407 held that Section 3(b) which defines 'claim' to mean a right of payment even if it is disputed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that Section 7 stands in contrast with the scheme under Section 8 where an 'Operational Creditor', on the occurrence of default, has right to show the existing dispute. On the other hand, in the case of 'Corporate Debtor' who commits a default of 'financial debt', the Adjudicating Authority has merely to see the records of information utility or other evidence produced by the 'Financial Creditor' to satisfy itself that a default had occurred. This is evident from the relevant portion of the judgment, which is as follows: "27. The scheme of the Code is to ensure that when a default takes place, in the sense that a debt becomes due and is not paid, the insolve....