Skip to main content

Insolvency - Dues between Joint Venture Partners are not Financial Debt

IN THE MATTER OF M/s. Vipul Limited vs M/s. Solitaire Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., the application under Section 7 filed by the appellant was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority of NCLT holding that this Bench is of the opinion that the issue involved herein arises out of breach of a Contract and therefore initiation of CIRP against the Respondent is not justified. The Petition is devoid of the essential ingredients of the Section 5(8) of IBC, 2016 and is therefore Rejected.

On appeal, the NCLAT observed that the two litigants had entered into a Joint Venture as partners and the appellant had addressed itself as an ‘Operational Creditor’ and called upon the Respondent to pay the ‘unpaid Operational debt’. The Appellant has admitted that it is a ‘Joint Partnership Agreement’. This emphasizes that the parties have a mutual right to control the enterprise involving mutual duties and obligations. Further, this Tribunal whiledealing with a Joint Venture in a real estate Project, in Mamatha V/s. AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. dated 30.11.2018, has held as follows;

’14. If the two ‘Corporate Debtors’ collaborate and form an independent corporate unity entity for developing the land and allotting the premises to its allottee, the application under Section 7 will be maintainable against both of them jointly and not individually against one or other.’

Based on the above observations, the NCLAT decided that that in such a kind of a Joint Venture Project, both the parties, if they are a Corporate should be jointly treated to be one for the purpose of initiation of CIRP and hence this Application under Section 7 is not maintainable.

The NCLAT further held that the Joint Development Agreement entered into, is a contract of reciprocal rights and obligations, both parties are admittedly ‘Joint Development Partners’, who entered into a consortium of sorts for developing an Integrated Township and for any breach of terms of contract, Section 7 Application is not maintainable as the amount cannot be construed as ‘Financial Debt’ as defined under Section 5(8) of the Code. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Appellant cannot be termed to be a ‘Financial Creditor’ as envisaged under Section 5(7) of the IBC, 2016.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more