Skip to main content

Insolvency - Dues between Joint Venture Partners are not Financial Debt

IN THE MATTER OF M/s. Vipul Limited vs M/s. Solitaire Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., the application under Section 7 filed by the appellant was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority of NCLT holding that this Bench is of the opinion that the issue involved herein arises out of breach of a Contract and therefore initiation of CIRP against the Respondent is not justified. The Petition is devoid of the essential ingredients of the Section 5(8) of IBC, 2016 and is therefore Rejected.

On appeal, the NCLAT observed that the two litigants had entered into a Joint Venture as partners and the appellant had addressed itself as an ‘Operational Creditor’ and called upon the Respondent to pay the ‘unpaid Operational debt’. The Appellant has admitted that it is a ‘Joint Partnership Agreement’. This emphasizes that the parties have a mutual right to control the enterprise involving mutual duties and obligations. Further, this Tribunal whiledealing with a Joint Venture in a real estate Project, in Mamatha V/s. AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. dated 30.11.2018, has held as follows;

’14. If the two ‘Corporate Debtors’ collaborate and form an independent corporate unity entity for developing the land and allotting the premises to its allottee, the application under Section 7 will be maintainable against both of them jointly and not individually against one or other.’

Based on the above observations, the NCLAT decided that that in such a kind of a Joint Venture Project, both the parties, if they are a Corporate should be jointly treated to be one for the purpose of initiation of CIRP and hence this Application under Section 7 is not maintainable.

The NCLAT further held that the Joint Development Agreement entered into, is a contract of reciprocal rights and obligations, both parties are admittedly ‘Joint Development Partners’, who entered into a consortium of sorts for developing an Integrated Township and for any breach of terms of contract, Section 7 Application is not maintainable as the amount cannot be construed as ‘Financial Debt’ as defined under Section 5(8) of the Code. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Appellant cannot be termed to be a ‘Financial Creditor’ as envisaged under Section 5(7) of the IBC, 2016.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more