NCLT Mumbai Rejects Claim of Alleged Financial Creditor in E-Commerce Magnum CIRP

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.