Skip to main content

Insolvency - Decree Holders Do Not Come Under The Definition Of Financial Creditors

IN THE MATTER OF Sh. Sushil Ansal vs Ashok Tripathi, appeal was filed before the NCLAT against the order of the NCLT admitting an application filed by the Respondents under Section 7 of the Insolvency Code.

The Respondents have been awarded decree for recovery of their money paid to the Corporate Debtor by the ‘Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority’ (“UP RERA”). As per Adjudicating Authority, the decree proved the existence of financial debt and liability of Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the Corporate Debtor has failed to pay the principal amount along with penalty as decreed by the “UP RERA”. The Adjudicating Authority had passed the impugned order based on the Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal in “M/s. Ugro Capital Limited v. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Bangalore Dehydration and Drying Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd.-Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 984 of 2019” wherein the Appellate Tribunal had observed that the definition of word ‘creditor’ in ‘I&B Code’ includes decree-holder and a petition filed for realisation of decretal amount could not be dismissed on the ground that the creditor should have taken steps for filing execution case in Civil Court.

The Appellate Tribunal observed that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 neither asserted nor sought triggering of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in a purported capacity as allottees of Real Estate Project but sought initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor on the strength of being ‘decree-holders’ which owed its genesis to the Recovery Certificate issued by the ‘UP RERA’.

The Appellate Tribunal decided that the question was whether in their projected capacity as ‘decree-holders’ Respondent Nos.1 and 2 could maintain an application under Section 7 as ‘Financial Creditors’.

A ‘decree-holder’ is undoubtedly covered by the definition of ‘Creditor’ under Section 3(10) of the ‘I&B Code’ but would not fall within the class of creditors classified as ‘Financial Creditor’ unless the debt was disbursed against the consideration for time value of money or falls within any of the clauses thereof as the definition of ‘financial debt’ is inclusive in character. A ‘decree’ is defined under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC” for short) as the formal expression of an adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to the matters in controversy in a lis. A ‘decree- holder’, defined under Section 2(3) of the same Code means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. Order XXI Rule 30 of the CPC lays down the mode of execution of a money decree. According to this provision, a money decree may be executed by the detention of judgment-debtor in civil prison, or by the attachment or sale of his property, or by both. Section 40 of the ‘Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016’ lays down the mode of execution by providing that the RERA may order to recover the amount due under the Recovery Certificate by the concerned Authority as an arrear of land revenue, which the said authority has already done in this case against the application filed by the Respondents.

Based on the above, the Appellate Tribunal answered the question of whether a decree-holder would fall within the definition of ‘Financial Creditor’ with an emphatic ‘No’ as the amount claimed under the decree is an adjudicated amount and not a debt disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and does not fall within the ambit of any of the clauses enumerated under Section 5(8) of the ‘I&B Code’.

As to the question of whether execution of decree on the strength of Recovery Certificate issued by the ‘UP RERA’ would justify triggering of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process at the instance of Respondent Nos.1 & 2, the Appellate Tribunal referring to the judgment of the tribunal in G. Eswara Rao v. Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund and Ors.- held that an application under Section 7 of the ‘I&B Code’ cannot be filed for execution of a decree.

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