This case involves two appeals filed by Mahesh Kumar Panwar, a shareholder, promoter, and director of Megha Software Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (the 'Corporate Debtor'). The first appeal, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 185 of 2017, challenged an order dated August 23, 2017, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, New Delhi Bench – I). This order admitted an application filed by Neelam Singh, an allottee, who was recognized as a 'Financial Creditor'. The appellant contended that an allottee of a flat does not fall under the definition of 'Financial Creditor' as per Section 5(7) read with Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). However, this argument was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, citing its previous decision in "Nikhil Mehta and Sons Vs. AMR Infrastructure Ltd." and the explanation below Section 5(8) of the IBC, which clarifies that flat allottees are indeed 'Financial Creditors'.

This case involves two appeals filed by Mahesh Kumar Panwar, a shareholder, promoter, and director of Megha Software Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (the 'Corporate Debtor'). The first appeal, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 185 of 2017, challenged an order dated August 23, 2017, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, New Delhi Bench – I). This order admitted an application filed by Neelam Singh, an allottee, who was recognized as a 'Financial Creditor'. The appellant contended that an allottee of a flat does not fall under the definition of 'Financial Creditor' as per Section 5(7) read with Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). However, this argument was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, citing its previous decision in "Nikhil Mehta and Sons Vs. AMR Infrastructure Ltd." and the explanation below Section 5(8) of the IBC, which clarifies that flat allottees are indeed 'Financial Creditors'.