NCLT Mumbai Rejects Claim of Alleged Financial Creditor in E-Commerce Magnum CIRP
Court / Authority
NCLT & NCLAT
Update / Judgement Date
29 Jun 2026
Source
WCP News Bulletin
Author
Manas Yadav — WCP Legal Desk
Reading Time
2 min read
View Count
Background
The Mumbai Bench-II of the National Company Law Tribunal has dismissed two interlocutory applications filed by Nitin Chunilal Adani, seeking admission of his claim and a restraint on the Committee of Creditors (CoC) from voting on any resolution plan in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of E Commerce Magnum Solution Limited. The applications were moved under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Resolution Professional, Pankaj Ramdas Majithia. The applicant claimed to be a financial creditor on the basis of an alleged loan of ₹8.50 crore disbursed in 2011, out of which ₹7 crore was repaid, leaving ₹1.50 crore outstanding along with interest. He further relied on an allotment letter dated 7 April 2019, under which multiple residential units were purportedly allotted to him against adjustment of amounts allegedly due from the corporate debtor. It was argued that despite submission of claims pursuant to the public announcement, the Resolution Professional failed to verify and admit the claims, thereby excluding the applicant from the CoC.
No Financial Debt or Homebuyer Status Established
Rejecting the plea, the NCLT held that the applicant failed to establish the existence of a “financial debt” within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the IBC. The Tribunal noted the absence of any loan agreement, repayment terms, or documentary evidence showing that the alleged amount was disbursed for the business of the corporate debtor. Mere acknowledgment by the erstwhile management or an allotment letter was held insufficient, particularly as the applicant was found to be a related party, which would in any event disentitle him from CoC membership.
On the allotment-based claim, the Tribunal held that the applicant also failed to qualify as a homebuyer. Relying on Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India and Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Spade Financial Services Ltd., the Bench reiterated that homebuyer status under the IBC presupposes actual disbursement having the commercial effect of borrowing, which was absent in the present case. Consequently, both applications were dismissed.
Full Judgement / Attachment
Full Judgement
Frequently asked questions about NCLT & NCLAT
- What are the NCLT and NCLAT?
- The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) were constituted on 1 June 2016 under the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLT sits in benches across India, and the NCLAT hears appeals from it, with its principal bench in New Delhi and a bench in Chennai.
- What cases does the NCLT hear?
- The NCLT is the Adjudicating Authority for corporate insolvency under the IBC. It also hears company law matters, including oppression and mismanagement petitions, schemes of merger and demerger, reduction of capital, and class action suits.
- What is the time limit to appeal an NCLT order to the NCLAT?
- Under the Companies Act, the appeal is due within 45 days, extendable by up to 45 days. Under the IBC, it is due within 30 days, extendable by up to 15 days. These outer limits are strictly applied.
- How can I check NCLT case status or orders?
- Case status, cause lists and orders are available on the NCLT website (nclt.gov.in) and the NCLAT website (nclat.nic.in), searchable by case number, party name or bench.
- How can White Collar Professional help with a NCLT or NCLAT matter?
- Post your requirement on White Collar Professional to receive proposals from verified Company Secretaries, Insolvency Professionals and Advocates, compare them, and pay securely through the platform. This page also tracks the latest NCLT or NCLAT NCLT and NCLAT judgements as they are reported.
