1. Mr. Naresh Verma Respondent No. 1 Resolution Professional Bohra Pratisthan Private Limited Having its Office at: 416/7 & 8, 1st Floor, Opp. Karkardooma Metro Station, Karkardooma, New Delhi110092. 2. STCI Finance Limited, Respondent No. 2 Through its Authorized Representative, Having office at: 401 & 412, 4th Floor, Prakashdeep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi110001. 3. Phosphate India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No. 3 Through its Authorized Representative, Having office at: 107108, Anand Plaza, University Road, Udaipur311001. Present For Appellant: Ms. Anju Jain, Mr. Hitesh Sachar, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 45 of 2021 Page 1 of 23 Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Amol Vyas, Ms. Saumil Sharma, RP, R1, Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Kamal Gupta, Caveators, R2. Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Mr. Tabrez Malawat, Mr. Harshita Choubey, Advocates for R3. Judgment (Date:13.07.2021) {Per: Dr. Alok Srivastava, Member (T)} 1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant assailing the order dated 11.12.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench) in IA No. 294/JPR /2020 in CP (IB) No. 171/7/JPR/2019 under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter called "IBC") read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking direction against Respondent No. 1 (Resolution Professional) to constitute the Committee of Creditors in accordance with Section 21 of IBC. 2. The brief facts of the case as presented and argued by the Appellant are that the Appellant 9M Corporation, which is a proprietorship concern, is a financial creditor of the Corporate Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 45 of 2021 Page 2 of 23 Debtor (Bohra Pratisthan Private Limitedhereinafter referred to as "BPPL"). The Appellant has claimed that the Committee of Creditors was constituted by the Respondent No.1, i.e. the Resolution Professional, in pursuance to the order of admission dated 5.8.2019 passed on the Section 7 application filed by the Appellant against the Corporate Debtor BPPL, and the first meeting of the Committee of Creditors (hereinafter called the "COC") was held on 4.9 2019. The Appellant has claimed that in the first meeting of the COC, the Resolution Professional determined the voting percentage of each member of the COC as follows: 9M Corporation (Appellant) 6.11% STCI Finance Limited (Respondent No. 2) 75.90% Phosphate India Private Limited (Respondent No.3) 17.99% The Appellant has further stated that the claim filed by STCI Finance Limited was based on debtorcreditor relationship, which is the result of guarantee given by the Corporate Debtor BPPL for a loan of Rupees 24 crores sanctioned by STCI Finance Ltd. to Bohra Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BIL"), which is a group concern of the Corporate Debtor BPPL. 3. It is claimed by the Appellant that BPPL has furnished a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 45 of 2021 Page 3 of 23 collateral security to Respondent No. 2 STCI Finance Limited and thus STCI Finance Ltd. is not a financial creditor as defined in Section 5(7) and Section 5(8) of the IBC since the fundamental requirement of a financial debt is "disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money". 4. Finally, the Appellant has claimed that the Adjudicating Authority has not considered this important distinction between „debt‟ and „financial debt‟, and has considered the debt advanced by STCI Finance Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) to be a financial debt. The Appellant has,