Dr. Anupam Jain Vs CS Chhaya Gupta (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that appellant doesn’t qualify as a Financial Creditor since appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving any disbursement as defined under Section 5(8)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal dismissed.
Facts- The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench. By the said order, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Appellant’s application seeking his recognition as Financial Creditor, filed under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, in a manner alleged to be contrary to the principles of natural justice and settled legal procedure.
Conclusion- Disbursement of money is a primary requirement for any person to be accepted as Financial Creditor u/s 5(8)(f) of the Code. The Appellant has undoubtedly failed to establish proof of any payment made to the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, there was no admissible claim, and possession, if any, was absolutely on account of illegal occupation of the flat owned by the Corporate Debtor.
With respect to proof of disbursement and status as a Financial Creditor we find that the Appellant’s claim hinges on alleged payments of ₹14,50,000/- by cheque and ₹7,69,983/- in cash. However, no documentary proof of cheque clearance, bank statement, or receipt has been filed. We note that the burden of proof lies upon the claimant to establish financial disbursement (Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17). The Resolution Professional’s duty is only to collate claims, not to adjudicate them beyond the documentary record. The registered Agreement for Sale dated 14.12.2016 records that the property was sold “without possession,” directly contradicting the possession letter dated 18.11.2016. Such inconsistencies, coupled with the alleged cash transaction during demonetisation, cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents. In light of these contradictions, we find that the Appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving any disbursement as defined under Section 5(8)(f) of the Code.
