# In the matter of Rajeev Kumar Jain vs. Uno Minda Limited & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-01-02. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00716. The appeal was filed by Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, an ex-director and shareholder of Unicast…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 2 Jan 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00716
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rajeev-kumar-jain-vs-uno-minda-limited-ors-5ff1446a

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed by Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, an ex-director and shareholder of Unicast Autotech Private Limited, against the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, Bench VI, in IB-763/(ND)/2021. The NCLT had admitted an application filed by Uno Minda Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Unicast Autotech Private Limited. The appellant contended that there was no financial debt owed by the corporate debtor to the respondent, and the debt, if any, should be treated as an operational debt.

## Facts

Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, ex-Director/Shareholder of M/s Unicast Autotech Private Limited, filed an appeal against the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, Bench VI, in IB-763/(ND)/2021. The NCLT admitted an application filed by M/s Uno Minda Limited (formerly Minda Industries Limited) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Unicast Autotech Private Limited. Unicast Autotech Private Limited is the 'Corporate Debtor'. The appellant argued that there was no financial debt against the Corporate Debtor and the money owed to the Respondent No. 1 could have been treated as operational debts. The Corporate Debtor and Respondent No. 1 had a

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the debt owed by the Corporate Debtor to the Respondent No. 1 is a financial debt or an …

**Ratio:** A financial debt is defined under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as a

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT observed that the Respondent No. 1 had provided working capital to the

…

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

…

**Application:** In this case, the Respondent No. 1 provided working capital to the Corporate

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Naresh Sa…
- **Appellants:** Rajeev Kuma…
- **Respondents:** M/s Unicast…; M/s Uno Minda…

## Timeline

- **2020-12-01 — Offer to Sel…**: The Corporate Debtor and its Promoters approached Respondent No. 1 with an offer to sell…
- **2021-02-15 — Non-Binding…**: A Non-Binding Offer (NBO) was…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

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/rajeev-kumar-jain-vs-uno-minda-limited-ors-5ff1446a