credit advice issued by Union Bank of India upon receipt of each remittance from Respondent No. 1 and the same corroborates with the invoices raised by the Corporate Debtor on Respondent No. 1. Though, this arrangement may have the effect of contravening provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act and Income Tax Act, it can not be denied, on the basis of fact placed on record, that the amounts in question were remitted by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 for the benefit of Corporate Debtor only. It is also undisputed fact that a sum of Rs. 7,95,49,771/- was transferred to the Corporate Debtor out of realization of USD 10,67,013.67 translating into Rs. 7,78,25,604/-. Though the Corporate Debtor had retained the balance of Respondent No. 1 as receivable and entered the sums received from Respondent No. 2 as “Temporary loans”, it can not be denied on facts that the money received by Respondent No. 2 from Respondent No. 1 was against discharge of Respondent No. 1’s obligation towards Corporate Debtor, which was reflecting as receivables in the books of Corporate Debtor. Similarly, the payments made by RPL to Corporate Debtor were out of proceeds, it held for the benefit of Corporate Debtor. In effect, the Respondent No. 2 merely acted as facilitator to enable the Corporate Debtor to realise its outstandings from Respondent No. 1 and receive it for its business operations in turn.
