# in the matter of Rubina Chadha & Anr. AMR Infrastructure Ltd. CA (AT) No. 8-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-07-21. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00154. Several appeals were filed against AMR Infrastructure Ltd. by different appellants claiming…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 21 Jul 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00154
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rubina-chadha-anr-amr-infrastructure-ltd-ca-at-no-8-2017-051e70ba

## Summary

### Background

Several appeals were filed against AMR Infrastructure Ltd. by different appellants claiming to be either 'Financial Creditors' or 'Operational Creditors'. These appeals arose from petitions initially filed under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Delhi High Court, which were later transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) following amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code). The NCLT dismissed the applications of the appellants, leading to the appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). A related case involving Nikhil Mehta and Sons, claiming to be a 'Financial Creditor', was initially dismissed by the NCLT but was later overturned by the NCLAT, which directed the NCLT to admit their

…

## Facts

Rubina Chadha & Anr., Sajive Kanwar, and Mukesh Kumar & Anr. filed appeals against AMR Infrastructure Ltd., claiming to be creditors. Rubina Chadha & Anr. initially filed a petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Delhi High Court, which was later transferred to the Tribunal. Sajive Kanwar claimed to be a 'Financial Creditor', while Mukesh Kumar & Anr. claimed to be 'Operational Creditors'. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) dismissed their applications. Nikhil Mehta and Sons also claimed to be 'Financial Creditors' and filed an application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, which was initially dismissed by the NCLT but later overturned by the NCLAT. The NCLAT directed the NCLT to admit Nikhil Mehta and Sons' application and

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the appellants are 'Financial Creditors' or 'Operational Creditors' of AMR Infrastructure …

**Ratio:** The determination of whether the appellants are 'Financial Creditors' or 'Operational

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT noted that the determination of the appellants' status as 'Financial Creditors'

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of the I&B Code provisions related to 'Financial

…

**Application:** The NCLAT allowed the appellants to file their claims before the IRP, who would

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Balvinder…
- **Appellants:** Rubina C…
- **Respondents:** AMR Infrastructure…

## Timeline

- **2017-01-23 — Impugned Judge…**: The impugned judgement was passed by…
- **2017-06-29 — Amended Rule 5…**: The Central Government notified an amended Rule 5 in exercise of powers conferred by…

## 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/rubina-chadha-anr-amr-infrastructure-ltd-ca-at-no-8-2017-051e70ba