Skip to main content

The Adjudicating Authority is not a Civil Court to decide the breach of the contract between the parties

In Saregama India Limited Vs. Home Movie Makers Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 359 of 2019, the Appellant had filed application before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of IB Code, 2016  against the Corporate Debtor – M/s Home Movie Makers Private Limited  for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Adjudicating Authority, after hearing the parties, dismissed the Application holding that the claim made by the Appellant (Financial Creditor) is not a ‘financial debt’ against which the appeal was filed before the NCLAT.

The Appellant in support of their grounds argued that the transaction between the parties clearly establishes it is a financial debt. Per contra, the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) denied the stand of the Appellant and states that it is not a financial debt in terms of Section 5(8) of the IBC and there was no Time Value of Money as consideration therefore the application of the Appellant was rightly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority.

The NCLAT observed that from perusal of the document and notice issued by the Appellant in Form -3 dated 15.11.2018, the Appellant relied upon the Marketing Agreement dated 09.12.2016 and corresponding letters as mentioned therein. However, in Form-1, i.e., Application under section 7 of IBC, the Appellant relied upon the Marketing Agreement dated 28.09.2013 and 09.12.2016 and claimed an amount of Rs. 57,55,799/- which was shown as default. 

The NCLAT decided that to determine the issue whether the claim of the Appellant falls under the category of ‘financial debt’ and whether the debt is due which has been disbursed against the consideration for Time Value of Money. From an in depth perusal of the agreement dated 28.09.2013 entered between the Appellant and the Respondent, the NCLAT decided that there is no clause with respect to payment of interest in case of default. From the aforesaid agreement it is clear that the Appellant had not disbursed the money against the consideration for the time value of money and the Respondent has not received the money as a financial debt. Under the IBC, the Adjudicating Authority or this Appellate Tribunal will not go into the aspects of the veracity of the agreement, its breach, void, voidable etc. The Adjudicating Authority is not a Civil Court to decide the breach of the contract between the parties. The IBC is a code by itself and will have to go strictly by the provisions of the Code, whether a claim is made under Section 9 by the Operation Creditor and under Section 7 by Financial Creditor and under Section 10 by a Corporate Applicant. 

The Appellant, who claims to be a Financial Creditor, however, claims made by it, is not a Financial Debt. It is reiterated that in the marketing agreements and subsequent correspondence exchanged between the Appellant and the Respondent, no way it is mentioned that the amount paid by the Appellant to be repayable along with interest over a period of time in a single or series of payments in future. However, the Appellant has not disbursed money against the consideration for the time value. Accordingly, it is held that the claim of the Appellant is not a Financial Debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of IBC. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more