# In the matter of RBT Private Limited IA Nos. 633 & 696-2022 in CP (IB) No.99-Chd-Hry-2020

> NCLT judgment dated 2023-05-02. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLT-03496. The case involves applications (IA Nos. 633/2022 & 696/2022) filed by the suspended directors…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 2 May 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLT-03496
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/rbt-private-limited-ia-nos-633-696-2022-in-cp-ib-no99-chd-hry-2020-397a903e

## Summary

### Background

The case involves applications (IA Nos. 633/2022 & 696/2022) filed by the suspended directors of a corporate debtor, RBT Private Limited, against the Resolution Professional and the South Indian Bank. The suspended directors, Rajan Chadha and Rajiv Chadha, sought directions to prevent the bank from pursuing recovery proceedings against them and to be treated as financial creditors due to EMIs they paid towards the corporate debtor's loan. The corporate debtor, operationally managed by Mr. Sanjay Arora, entered CIRP on 18.06.2021. The applicants had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Mr. Sanjay Arora, another director, where he was to repay the loan to South Indian Bank and release the collateral security (the applicants' residential house).

…

## Facts

Rajan Chadha and Rajiv Chadha, suspended directors of RBT Private Limited, filed applications against the Resolution Professional and South Indian Bank. RBT Private Limited entered CIRP on 18.06.2021. Prior to CIRP, the Chadhas entered into an MOU with Sanjay Arora, another director, where Arora would repay the South Indian Bank loan and release the Chadhas' residential house used as collateral. Arora defaulted on EMIs. The Chadhas paid Rs. 73,39,140 and later Rs. 90,66,140 towards the loan to prevent the attachment of their house. The Chadhas sought to be treated as financial creditors and to restrain the bank from invoking the collateral security. The bank issued a guarantee invocation letter dated 26.05.2022. The MOU was dated 21.12.2019. An arbitrator directed

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the payments of EMIs made by the applicants to the lending bank constitute a 'financial …

**Ratio:** The definition of 'financial debt' under Section 5(8) of the IBC requires that the debt

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the EMIs paid by the applicants were not disbursed against the

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 5(8) strictly, emphasizing the requirement of

…

**Application:** The court applied the definition of 'financial debt' to the facts of the case,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Harnam Singh…; SUBRATA KUM…
- **Appellants:** Rajan C…
- **Respondents:** RBT Private…; Ajay Kumar Siwach…
- **Advocates:** Prateek…; Rahul…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2019-12-21 — MOU Sign…**: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the applicant and another director…
- **2021-06-18 — CIRP Comm…**: The corporate debtor came under…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

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/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/rbt-private-limited-ia-nos-633-696-2022-in-cp-ib-no99-chd-hry-2020-397a903e