# In the matter of Aditya Enterprises Vs. Rajratan Exim Pvt. Ltd. CA (AT) No. 335-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2018-07-06. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00221. The appellant, Aditya Enterprises, filed an application under Section 433(1)(a) of the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 6 Jul 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00221
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/aditya-enterprises-vs-rajratan-exim-pvt-ltd-ca-0920a24a

## Summary

### Background

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

…

## Facts

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

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the loan provided by the appellant constitutes a 'financial debt' under the Insolvency and …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the interpretation of Section 5(8)(a) of the IBC, which defines

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of 'financial debt' under Section 5(8)(a) of the IBC

…

**Application:** In this specific case, the appellant's failure to provide evidence of the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Aditya Ente…
- **Respondents:** Rajratan Exim…
- **Advocates:** Sushanth…

## Timeline

- **2014-09-08 — Loan Disbur…**: Aditya Enterprises disbursed the first installment of Rs. 50,00,000 to Rajratan Exim Pvt.…
- **2014-09-10 — Loan Disbur…**: Aditya Enterprises disbursed the second installment of Rs. 50,00,000 to Rajratan Exim…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 239 — Power to make rules](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-239)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/aditya-enterprises-vs-rajratan-exim-pvt-ltd-ca-0920a24a