TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Code, 2016 ("IBC" in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 24.06.2022 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order") passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench) in CP (IB) No. 64/7/JPR/2019. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has returned the Company Petition filed under Section 7 of the IBC by the Appellant/Financial Creditor seeking to bring the Corporate Debtor/Respondent under the rigours of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP' in short) for being factually deficient particularly in respect of loan account. Aggrieved by this impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Financial Creditor. 2. Outlining the facts of the case, the Learned C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellant had issued a demand notice dated 07.01.2019 calling upon the Respondent to repay an outstanding amount of Rs.6,44,80,166/- including an interest amount of Rs.49,80,166/- due as on 31.12.2018. As there was no response from the Corporate Debtor to the said demand notice, the Appellant filed the Section 7 application before the Adjudicating Authority. 4. Making further submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Corporate Debtor while filing their reply affidavit before the Adjudicating Authority had contended that no default had been committed in the repayment of the loan since the period of 36 months had not elapsed in the case of two loan tranches and hence no valid demand could have been raised as no def....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there was discrepancy in the filing of supporting documents. 6. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the records carefully. Though sufficient steps were taken by the Appellant for service of notice on the Respondent, the Respondent remained absent during all hearings and have not filed any reply affidavit. 7. This brings us to the question whether there was sufficient cause for the Adjudicating Authority to return the application of the Financial Creditor instead of adjudicating on the Company petition. Present is a case where it is an undisputed fact that the Appellant in its capacity as NBFC had sanctioned three loans to the Respondent totaling an amount of Rs.5,95,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies including accrued interest made available to the same borrower/beneficiary also become Non-Performing Asset. The relevant RBI guidelines have been placed at Annexure-6 of the APB. We have also noticed that the Corporate Debtor had disputed the fact that a default had been committed in repayment of the loan. 8. Section 5(8) of the IBC which is relevant for the present case defines financial debt to mean a debt along with interest which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money. Further, clauses (a) to (i) of Section 5(8) delineates the nature of transactions which are included in the definition of financial debt which includes money borrowed against payment of interest. In the facts of the present case, the Ap....