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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

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