K. Anantha Padmanabha Swamy, Member - (1.) In this case, the applicant A.Senthil Kumar has advanced a sum of Rs.15 crores to the corporate debtor M/s.Paragon Steels Private Limited on 05.06.2013 through a MOU on the pledging of 51% of the Company shares by its Directors and other shareholders for the purpose of funding the working capital requirements of the Corporate Debtor. The claim was made by \ the applicant based on the public notice issued on 27.09.2017 and the claim has been made on 07.10.2017 by the applicant.
(2.) The applicant A.Senthil Kumar has stated that he had given an amount of Rs.15 crores on 05.06.2013 to the corporate debtor/2nd respondent to meet the working capital requirements of the corporate debtor and had given the details of disbursements of the loan also. It has been stated in the application that the loan is secured by a pledge of 51% of the shareholding of the properties of the corporate debtor. He has also stated that in connection with such loan and security creation, the applicant had executed a MoU on 05.06.2013 mentioning the terms of the financial credit including interest and the repayment schedule. The applicant has submitted an application in Form C after the public announcement giving details of the amount due to the applicant and enclosing the copy of the MoU and ledger extract. It is also evidenced by the entries in the balance sheet which clearly acknowledged the liability of the corporate debtor to the applicant. The applicant has also stated that they have responded to the clarifications sought by IRP. The main contention in this case relates to query (A) which is reproduced below along with the annexure that to given by the applicant. A.MolI is a receipt and is sufficiently stamped: Clause 1.1 of MoU acknowledges the receipt of money by the borrower. It read as follows: "The lender has this date lent to the borrower aggregate sum of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores only) in terms of details set out in Schedule II hereto, the receipt whereof is hereby achiowledged by the borrower" (at page no. 15 of CATS). A receipt is defined in Section 2(23) of The Indian Stamp Act read as follows: Section 2(23) ' Receipt: "receipt includes any note, memorandum or writing-(a) whereby any money, or any bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note is acknowledged to have been received, or (b) whereby any other movable property is acknowledged to have been received in satisfaction of a debt, or (c ) whereby any debt or demand, or any part of debt or demand, is acknowledged to have been satisfied or discharged, or (d) which signifies or imports any such acknowledgement, and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any person "; Schedule ' I of the Indian Stamp Act, Article 53 states that the stamp duty on a receipt should be "One rupee " (for any money or the other property the amount or value of which exceeds Rupees Five Thousand) . Therefore the MoU dated 05.06.2013 is sufficiently stamped.
(3.) The applicant has stated that the JRP has rejected the claim on the ground that the applicant has failed to provide a demand promissory note duly stamped in evidence of the claim, while accepting the fact, that the amount claimed by the applicant was reflected in the books of accounts of the corporate debtor. The applicant has stated that vide Regulation 8 it is not mandatory that the debt ought to be proved only by production of the demand promissory note.;