Held that after referring to the facts of the case and precedents of various cases held that the Petitioners were the direct beneficiaries of the fraudulent transaction. When a person takes financial benefits for the purpose of business by fraudulent means or otherwise, then such a person can be said to be a debtor of the bank. It is not mandatory that unless and until all necessary documents are executed at the time of taking financial help the alleged fraudulent transaction can also be covered under the definition of debt. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Petition was dismissed.
