Page 803 - IBC Orders us 7-CA Mukesh Mohan

Order Passed Under Sec 7
By Hon’ble NCLT New Delhi-II Bench

10. The respondent on being served has repudiated the claim of the Financial Creditor. It is submitted

that as against the payment received from the Financial Creditor, a sum of Rs. 47,79,018/- has already
been paid and no further amount is pending. In addition, a plot of land had also been allotted for her.

11. The case of the Corporate Debtor is that the claim of the petitioner being in the nature of
compensation cannot be treated as the Financial Debt within the definition of Section 5(8) of the Code. It

is submitted that the agreement dated 26.06.2014 was fabricated and an FIR was also filed against her. It
is also alleged that the blank stamp papers and cheques, duly signed, were given by way of security which
the Financial Creditor has misused.

12. The respondents have filed a statement of amount given to the Financial Creditor since the receipt
of the money from her,

13. In the rejoinder arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Financial Creditor does not dispute the amounts
received from the Corporate Debtor, but submits that these have been by way of interest payable under

the agreement/ MOU executed between the parties. This is evident from the TDS deposited by the
Corporate Debtor under the Head 194 A reflected in the Form 26 AS of the Financial Creditor. In respect

of the FIR, it is submitted that a final/closure report has been filed as the investigations have belied the
allegations made by the Corporate Debtor. Further, the submissions that the MOU / Agreement are
fabricated or that the blank cheques and the stamp papers have been misused are without any legs to stand

upon. In proceedings pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a connected matter viz. Surnan
Singh V/s. M/s. Mega Soft Infrastructure, the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged the execution of the
agreement dated 30.01.2016. Further no piece of land was either allotted to the Financial Creditor as

alleged or accepted by her in lieu of the outstanding debt.

14. As per the terms of the agreement dated 30.01.2016, which novates the previous agreements, it is
specifically recorded that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties herein, the previous

cheques were being replaced by new cheques, being Cheque no. 125386 dated 23.02.2016 for Rs.
29,61,261/- and cheque no. 125388 dated 10.05.2016 for Rs. 93,95,7411- drawn on UCO Bank. This
agreement has been admitted before the Honble High Court as having been executed as observed above.

15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Bench does not find any real dispute with respect
to a debt recoverable by the Financial Creditor. The Corporate Debtor prefers to call it compensation.
However, it is not disputed that the project was never completed. The assured returns by way of monthly

interest on the payment received was disrupted after sometime. The Corporate Debtor seeks to refer to

803