Skip to main content

Internal Problems Of Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Termed A Dispute As Per IBC Code

In Mr. Chetan Sharma Vs. Jai Lakshmi Solvents (P) Ltd., the Corporate Debtor tried to raise the issue of existence of dispute within the company before the Ld. NCLAT.  The Corporate Debtor said that the delivery of goods against which payment has been claimed by the creditors were fraudulently taken by the MD, who has since accepted his liability and has undertaken all the liabilities of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ incurred by him fraudulently. Thus, according to the Appellant, a novation of the contract took place, which makes the alleged sums recoverable only from Mr. Dinesh Arora and not from the ‘Corporate Debtor’.

The Ld. Tribunal held that it is a settled law that unilateral ‘transfer’ of liability does not constitute a ‘dispute’ within the meaning of Section 5(6) of the ‘I&B Code’. The ‘dispute’ under Section 5(6) of the ‘I&B Code’ has to be between the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and the ‘Operational Creditors’ and an inter-se dispute between two groups of shareholders of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ does not constitute a ‘dispute’ in reference to ‘Operational Creditors’.

An outstanding in the account of a borrower (customer), is a debt due and payable by the borrower to the Creditor. The Creditor is the owner of such debt. Such debt is an asset in the hands of a Creditor, whether ‘Secured Creditor’ or ‘Unsecured Creditor’ or ‘Operational Creditor’ or ‘Financial Creditor’. The creditor can always transfer its assets (debt) to an assignee but the borrower cannot transfer its liability of debt to a third party. Therefore, the Appellant cannot take advantage of agreement of transfer of liability of debt of ‘Corporate Debtor’ to Mr. Dinesh Arora.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Even An Unregistered Partnership Firm Can Maintain ‘Cheque Bounce’ Complaint

In M/s Uttam Traders Ranghri vs. Tule Ram alias Tula Ram, an appeal was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court solely on the ground that one of the partners of the complainant-firm which is an unregistered partnership concern, had failed to prove that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint and acquitted the respondent. The High Court decided that two questions arise for consideration in this matter :- 1) Whether acquittal by the magistrate solely on the ground that the managing partner of the appellant having failed to establish that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint was correct 2) Whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the first issue, the High Court referred to M/s Haryana State Co.Op., Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. M/s Jayam Text...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more