TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been filed by the Financial Creditor who had moved the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench - III) in C.P. No. IB-189/(ND)/2019 and the Application of the Appellant under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC - in short) came to be rejected. The Appellant - Financial Creditor has moved this Appeal against dismissal of the said Application against the Respondent - Corporate Debtor. 2. The Appellant claims that the Appellant had provided loan amounts to the Corporate Debtor from time to time by way of an oral Agreement. The amounts were disbursed in between 20th August, 2015 to 1st March, 2016 and the dues outstanding were of Rs. 3,51,00,000/-. It is the case of the Appellant that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ach of Clause 1.3 of the MOU and there is possibility of forfeiture. Counsel states that the loan Agreement dated 19th December, 2014 did not specify any amount and the subsequent MOU dated 3rd April, 2017 stated that there were dues of Rs. 4,31,97,115/- which was outstanding amounts against the unsecured loan of the Company and this MOU purported to be Agreement between the parties whereby the lender was treated as Investor for CCD (Compulsory Convertible Debentures) adding provision that the Appellant would further invest to the extent of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- within a period of 18 months effective 1st April, 2017 which was treated as interest free period and in default, there was provision for the Respondent to forfeit the amount. The learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng security. In the circumstances, we are not ready to discard the loan Agreement pointed out by the Respondent and the MOU only because the Appellant now turns around to brand one of its Directors as not good Director with whom the other Director, his brother subsequently claims to have developed disputes. Calling a document as forged is not enough to throw out the document unless there is, prima facie, evidence to show that the document is a false creation by the opposite party. 8. The record shows that when the Appellant sent the recall Notice, the Respondent immediately by way of another Notice which is at Page - 138 referred to the documents executed between the parties and claimed that for want of the investment, it had suffered dama....