# Mr. Rajender Prasad Mittal vs. M/s Jaikrishan Estates Private Limited

> NCLAT judgment dated 2026-05-19. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLAT-00203. Mr. Rajender Prasad Mittal (Appellant) filed a Section 7 IBC petition against M/s Jaikrishan…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 19 May 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLAT-00203
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mr-rajender-prasad-mittal-vs-ms-jaikrishan-estates-private-limited-n5wze

## Summary

### Background

Mr. Rajender Prasad Mittal (Appellant) filed a Section 7 IBC petition against M/s Jaikrishan Estates Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), claiming to be a Financial Creditor who advanced an interest-free loan of Rs. 6,86,44,042/- in FY 2014-15. The Corporate Debtor repaid Rs. 3 Crores, leaving an outstanding principal of Rs. 6,86,44,042/-. The Appellant argued the debt was acknowledged in the Corporate Debtor's balance sheets as "long term borrowing" and, as a former director, the funds had a commercial effect of borrowing. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejected the petition, concluding the debt did not qualify as financial debt under Section 5(8) of the IBC, without issuing notice to the Respondent or fully examining the details.

## Facts

Mr. Rajender Prasad Mittal (Appellant) claims to be a Financial Creditor.

The Appellant advanced a loan of Rs. 6,86,44,042/- to the Corporate Debtor, M/s Jaikrishan Estates Private Limited, in the Financial Year 2014-15.

The loan was disbursed from the Appellant's personal bank account maintained with Axis Bank.

The Corporate Debtor repaid Rs. 3 Crores, but Rs. 6,86,44,042/- against the principal remains outstanding.

The Appellant claims the outstanding amount is shown in the Corporate Debtor's books under "long term borrowing".

The Corporate Debtor acknowledged the aforesaid amount in its balance sheet for the Financial Year 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, and 2022-23.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the amount advanced by the Appellant to the Corporate Debtor constitutes a 'financial debt' …

**Ratio:** Appellant argued that a loan, even interest-free, disbursed and acknowledged in the

…

**Reasoning:** Appellant relied on judgments like Mobile Constructions, Pancham Studios, Sailesh

…

**Interpretation:** Appellant interpreted Section 5(8) of IBC, particularly clause (f), as

…

**Application:** Appellant applied his argument by stating he disbursed funds from his personal

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** N. Sesha…; Arun Ba…
- **Appellants:** Rajender Prasad…
- **Respondents:** M/s Jaikrishan…
- **Other parties:** Ashok W…; Amit Si…; +4 more
- **Advocates:** Gaurav…; Kunal God…; +5 more

## Timeline

- **1997 — Company Incor…**: Respondent company, M/s Jaikrishan…
- **2000 — Shareholding Dilution and Induction of New…**: The ownership and control of the Respondent company were diluted, and the Appellant…

## 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/mr-rajender-prasad-mittal-vs-ms-jaikrishan-estates-private-limited-n5wze