Skip to main content

Date of decree cannot be brought forward/substituted with date of default

Cause Title : Venus Buildtech India Private Limited vs Senbo Engineering Limited, C.P. (IB) No. 60/KB/2021, National Company Law Tribunal Kolkata Bench

Date of Judgment/Order : 4/8/2023

Corum : Smt. Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial), Shri Balraj Joshi, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Jignesh Shah and Another v. Union of India and Another, (2019) 10 SCC 750
  2. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. Bishal Jaiswal and Another, (2021) 6 SCC 366
  3. V. Padamkumar Vs. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund (SASF) & Anr., C.A.(AT) (Ins) No. 57 of 2020
  4. SLB Welfare Assn. v. PSA IMPEX (P) Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 905 and 642 of 2022, decided on 04-11-2022
  5. Sri Subhankar Bhowmik v. Union of India and Anr., WP(C)(PIL) No.04/2022 decided on 14 March, 2022

Background

Venus Buildtech had originally filed a suit under order 37 CPC in the month of November, 2010 before the ADJ, Delhi which was decided and decree and as per the said order/judgement dated 12 September, 2017, Venus Buildtech is entitled to recover the Principal Suit amount of Rs.77,10,967/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Lac Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Seven only) along with interest @ 9% per annum on the money decree from the Senbo Engineering. The same is still outstanding and payable by Senbo Engineering to Venus Buildtech despite repeated follow ups, communications for several months.

Subsequently, Venus Buildtech  filed application as an 'Operational Creditor' before the NCLT on 17 February, 2021 and the date of default is stated to be as on 06 March, 2020 i.e., the date of execution order of the decree.

The Corporate Debtor raised objections stating that the review petition filed by the Corporate Debtor has been registered as Misc. DJ No.66 of 2021 and the same is pending for hearing before the Hon’ble Court  and therefore the debt is not undisputed and has not attained finality, thus, there exists ‘pre-existing disputes’ between the parties.

Judgment

The NCLT observed that two questions need to be answered :-

1) Can the date of default be shifted forward to the date of decree?
2) Can a decree holder file an application under section 9 of the Code?

On the first question, the Ld. NCLT quoting the above judgments, held that a suit for recovery of money can be filed only when there is a default of dues. Even if the decree is passed, the date of default cannot be shift forward to the date of decree or date of payment for execution as a decree can be executed within specified period i.e. 12 years. If it is executable within the period of limitation, one cannot allege that there is a default of decree or payment of dues. Therefore, a Judgment or a decree passed by a Court for recovery of money by Civil Court/ Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot shift forward the date of default for the purpose of computing the period for filing an application under Section 7 of the ‘I&B Code’.

As for the second question, again referring to the judgments the NCLT held that the IBC treats decree holders as a separate class, recognized by virtue of the decree held. The IBC does not provide for any malleability or overlap of classes of creditors to enable decree holders to be classified as financial or operational creditors. 

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

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more