this case nor any reply was filed, therefore, the respondent-corporate debtor proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.07.2022 of this Adjudicating Authority. The short written submissions were filed by the petitioner-financial creditor vide Diary No.00033/6 dated 29.11.2022. Vide order dated 24.01.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner-financial creditor was directed to file a detailed note on maintainability which is filed vide Diary No.00033/8 dated 17.03.2023 relying upon the judgment of “ Hon’ble NCLAT, Chennai Bench in Company Appeal No.(AT)(Ins) No.07/2017 titled as Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF) & Ors. Vs. M/s AMR Infrastructure Ltd. decided on 21.07.2017” wherein it has been held that those who have the commitment to pay ‘assured return’, interest, etc. are covered under the expression of ‘financial creditor under Section 5(7) of the Code and accordingly the said amount due and payable by the CD to the applicants after the maturity of the investment schemes falls under the definition of ‘financial debt’ under Section 5(8) of the Code. Further reliance is placed upon the authority titled Mr. Bhanu Ram & Ors. Versus M/s HBN Diaries & Allied Ltd. CP (IB) No.547/Pb/2018 passed by Hon’ble NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi :- wherein the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble NCLT has duly observed and categorically stated that the investment schemes as floated by the CD in the present matter fall under the category of ‘Assured Returns’ since the investors in the said scheme are guaranteed a higher amount after the term of the said scheme. Therefore, the purpose of the scheme introduced in such cases amounts to profit to the investor as the amount invested of such nature automatically incurs interest which the investors receive at the time of maturity of the said schemes. Therefore, the amount accrued and receivable by the applicants from the