Skip to main content

Advanced payment for supply of goods is not Operational Debt

 IN THE MATTER OF Smt. Andal Bonumalla vs Tomato Trading LLP., the primary question raised in the appeal before NCLAT against the order of the NCLT was whether an advance amount for supply of goods can be considered as an Operational Debt under Section 5(20) of the I&B Code?

The NCLAT observed that this is admitted fact that the Corporate Debtor has agreed to deliver 130 Matric Tons of Sugar to the Operational Creditor, for the same, the Operational Creditor paid an advance amount total Rs. 34,90,180/- to Corporate Debtor and Corporate Debtor has issued Proforma Invoice dated 08.02.2017. The Corporate Debtor refunded Rs. 9 Lakhs only, balance principal amount of Rs. 25,90,180/- and interest Rs. 4,92,634/- total as on 07.03.2018 a sum of Rs. 30,82,814/- is due from the Corporate Debtor. We have considered whether this amount is come within the definition of Operational Debt under Section 5 (21) of I&B Code. The Respondent No. 1 has not supplied any goods or provided any services to Respondent No. 2, but paid an advance amount to Respondent No. 2 for supplying Sugar. However, the Respondent No. 2 failed to supply the Sugar to Respondent No. 1. Thus, the advance amount in the hand of Respondent No. 2 cannot termed as Operational Debt. Consequently, the Respondent No. 1 does not come within the definition under Section 5(20) of I&B Code, the Operational Creditor.

Allowing the appeal, the NCLAT held that advanced payment to Respondent (Operational Creditor) for supply of goods cannot be treated to be an Operational Debt and the Application under Section 9 of I&B Code, was not maintainable. The advance amount paid by the Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 for supply of Sugar is not an Operational Debt. Learned Adjudicating Authority erroneously admitted the Application. Thus, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated is set aside.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more