The appellant, Aditya Enterprises, filed an application under Section 433(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1956 before the High Court, claiming that it had lent Rs. 1,00,00,000 to the Corporate Debtor, Rajratan Exim Pvt. Ltd., in two installments on September 8th and 10th, 2014. The Corporate Debtor allegedly failed to make the payment. The case was later transferred to the Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai Bench, to be treated as an application under Section 7 of the 'I&B' Code. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that there was no financial transaction as envisaged under Section 5(7) & (8) of the 'I&B' Code, except for confirmation of the amount of receipt. The Adjudicating Authority held that mere receipt of a loan cannot be treated as 'operational debt' or
…Aditya Enterprises claimed to have lent Rs. 1,00,00,000 to Rajratan Exim Pvt. Ltd. in two installments on September 8th and 10th, 2014. Rajratan Exim Pvt. Ltd. allegedly failed to repay the loan. Aditya Enterprises filed an application under Section 433(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1956 before the High Court. The case was transferred to the Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai Bench, to be treated as an application under Section 7 of the 'I&B' Code. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that there was no financial transaction as envisaged under Section 5(7) & (8) of the 'I&B' Code, except for confirmation of the amount of receipt. The Corporate Debtor disputed the debt, claiming it had already been repaid. The appellant's counsel argued that the loan should be
…Sign in to view the parties.
Aditya Enterprises disbursed the first…
Aditya Enterprises disbursed the second…
The appellant, Aditya Enterprises, filed an application under Section 433(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1956 before the High Court, claiming that it had lent Rs. 1,00,00,000 to the Corporate Debtor, Rajratan Exim Pvt. Ltd., in two installments on September 8th and 10th, 2014. The Corporate Debtor allegedly failed to make the payment. The case was later transferred to the Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai Bench, to be treated as an application under Section 7 of the 'I&B' Code. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that there was no financial transaction as envisaged under Section 5(7) & (8) of the 'I&B' Code, except for confirmation of the amount of receipt. The Adjudicating Authority held that mere receipt of a loan cannot be treated as 'operational debt' or
…Aditya Enterprises claimed to have lent Rs. 1,00,00,000 to Rajratan Exim Pvt. Ltd. in two installments on September 8th and 10th, 2014. Rajratan Exim Pvt. Ltd. allegedly failed to repay the loan. Aditya Enterprises filed an application under Section 433(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1956 before the High Court. The case was transferred to the Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai Bench, to be treated as an application under Section 7 of the 'I&B' Code. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that there was no financial transaction as envisaged under Section 5(7) & (8) of the 'I&B' Code, except for confirmation of the amount of receipt. The Corporate Debtor disputed the debt, claiming it had already been repaid. The appellant's counsel argued that the loan should be
…Aditya Enterprises disbursed the first…
Aditya Enterprises disbursed the second…