# In the matter of Doha Bank Q.P.S.C & Ors.Vs. Anish Nanavaty RP of Corporate Debtor Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP Company Appeal (AT) (Ins)No. 414 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-09-09. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00225. The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the IBC, 2016, against the Adjudicating Authority's…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 9 Sept 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00225
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/doha-bank-qpsc-orsvs-anish-nanavaty-rp-of-corporate-debtor-deloitte-touche-tohma-18d69fc4

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the IBC, 2016, against the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 02.03.2021. The Appellant No. 1, Doha Bank, claimed to be a direct lender and secured Financial Creditor of Reliance Infratel Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). The appellant was aggrieved by the Adjudicating Authority's decision to classify indirect lenders as Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The appellant contended that Respondents 2 to 5 were not lenders to the Corporate Debtor, and the Corporate Debtor did not extend any Corporate Guarantee in favor of the Respondents. The appellant argued that considering the Respondents as Financial Creditors based on the 'Deed of Hypothecation' (DOH) was an ignorance of Section 5(8) of the Code. The appellant challenged the

…

## Facts

Doha Bank, the Appellant No. 1, claimed to be a direct lender and secured Financial Creditor of Reliance Infratel Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). The Corporate Debtor had gone under CIRP based on a Company Petition filed under Section 9 of the Code. The IRP made a public announcement inviting claims from the Creditors of the Corporate Debtor, and the Appellants submitted their claims. The Appellant observed that the revised list of financial creditors of the Corporate Debtor contained the names of Indirect Lenders who are the Creditors of Rcom and RTL. The Appellant contended that Respondents 2 to 5 are not the lenders of the Corporate Debtor, nor has the Corporate Debtor extended any Corporate Guarantee in favor of Respondents. The Appellant argued that considering the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in considering R-2 to R-5 as Financial Creditors of …

**Ratio:** The ratio is that the Adjudicating Authority's decision to consider R-2 to R-5 as

…

**Reasoning:** The reasoning is that Section 5(8) of the Code is exhaustive, and a mere 'Deed of

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that the 'Deed of Hypothecation' should be interpreted

…

**Application:** The application is that the Adjudicating Authority's order is set aside, and

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rakesh…; Ashok Kumar…
- **Appellants:** Doha Bank Q…
- **Respondents:** Reliance Infratel…; Anish Nan…

## Timeline

- **2021-03-02 — Order by Adjudicating…**: Order passed by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench,…
- **2018-05-15 — CIRP Init…**: Corporate Debtor went into CIRP vide…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/doha-bank-qpsc-orsvs-anish-nanavaty-rp-of-corporate-debtor-deloitte-touche-tohma-18d69fc4