TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appearing for the Respondent. This Company Appeal has been preferred being aggrieved against an order dated 17.12.2021, passed by NCLT, Division Bench - I, Chennai, by virtue of which Section 7 application CP (IB) No. 69/2021, filed by the Appellant has been rejected. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order had held that there is no financial debt proved by the Appellant, hence the application stood rejected. 2. Brief fact to be notice for deciding the appeal, are that the Appellant, was a Director of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Dakshin Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant's case is that under the Board Resolution the Appellant alleges to have obtained a mortgage loan from the ICICI Bank, of Rs. 88,00,000/- and on the sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....btor and it was rather the Appellant who took the loan from the ICICI Bank and there was no financial debt which was ever owned by the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant. It is submitted that no transaction was ever entered between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor so as to give rise to any financial debt. It is submitted that Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the Application under Section 7. 4. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The facts of the case as noted above clearly indicate that the loan was taken by the Appellant in her own name from the ICICI Bank by mortgaging Flat No. 6A, Arihant Vaikunt, 123 & 124, Bricklin Road, Purasawakkam, Chennai-07. The minutes of m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 5 sub-section 8, the condition, which needs to be fulfiled is that, loan has to be disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money for calling a debt as a financial debt under Clauses A to F, the pre-condition is that, the disbursement has to be against the consideration for the time value of money. The facts, which have come on record in the present case clearly indicate that, it is the loan that, was taken by the Appellant in her own name from the ICICI Bank, as per the Board's Resolution noticed above. In fact there was no transaction between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor as claimed or brought on record. The essential element to prove disbursement for time value of money is absent in the present case. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a borrowing which also includes a forward sale or purchase agreement. It is manifestly clear that money advanced by a promoter, director or a shareholder of the corporate debtor as a stakeholder to improve financial health of the company and boost its economic prospects, would have the commercial effect of borrowing on the part of corporate debtor notwithstanding the fact that no provision is made for interest thereon. Due to fluctuations in market and the risks to which it is exposed, a company may at times feel the heat of resource crunch and the stakeholders like promoter, director or a shareholder may, in order to protect their legitimate interests be called upon to respond to the crisis and in order to save the company they may infus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... repaid the mortgage loan by herself by selling her flat. 7. The above judgment, which is relied by the Appellant does not come into aid of the Appellant in the present case. The next judgment relied by the Appellant is Amrit Lal Goverdhan Lalan vs State Bank of Travancore & Ors., 1968 SCR (3) 724, where the Supreme Court; held that CoC will be entitled to recourse to every remedy, which the creditor as against the principal Corporate Debtor, there can be no dispute to the preposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case, but present is not a case, where there is any grievance entered by the Appellant, Corporate Debtor or the Bank. Rather, agreement was only with regards to the loan, which was taken by the Appellant from the ....