TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ok Bhushan] Chairperson And [Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Mr. Yashoaj Guglani, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Subhanshu Sharma, C.S. ORDER Heard Learned Counsel for Appellant and Respondent-C.S. Shree Subhanshu Sharma. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 28th November, 2022 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has rejected Section 7 Appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have admitted the Section 7 Application. 4. Company Secretary appearing for the Respondent submits that Company's situation was not financially good hence the payment could not be made however the loan is not denied and the repayments were also made of Rs. 4.10 Lakh and Rs. 2 Lakh in August, 2015. 5. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel and Company Secretary for the parties and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Bank Statement produced and relied by the Applicant is inconsistent with its Ledger Account; (b) The alleged debt was not disbursed qua the loan agreement dated 17.12.2021 annexed by the Applicant; (c) There is nothing on record pertaining to the disbursement period that the amount was disbursed as Loan; (d) Also, there is nothing on record to depict that the Applicant was eligible t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... indicate that Rs. 4.10 Lac was credited in the Account of the Financial Creditor. Thus the basis of the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting Section 7 Application is unfounded. As far as observation of the Adjudicating Authority that the agreement dated 17.12.2021 can not be said to be Loan Agreement the said observation is also not correct since Agreement dated 17.12.2021 was a settleme....