Skip to main content

Unpaid sellers’ lien under the Sale of Goods Act Do not Create Security Interest Under Insolvency Code

IN THE MATTER OF Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (Appellant/ Operational Creditor/Applicant) vs  Mr. Anil Goel,  in the appeal against the order of NCLT, 

The NCLAT observed that the Appellant in Form ‘B’ and Form ‘C’ claimed that it has unpaid sellers’ lien under the Sale of Goods Act on the material supplied which is lying/stored at Corporate Debtor’s project site and a statutory charge under the Transfer of Property Act on the goods supplied that have since been erected. The Liquidator rejected this claim and held that the Appellant was not a Secured Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority also looked into this aspect and in Paragraphs – 21 to 30 referred to the provisions of IBC. It has also looked into the agreement between the parties and the contractual provisions at Paragraphs – 31 to 34 of the Impugned Order and held that the Appellant is not having security interest and consequently, cannot be considered as a Secured Creditor. 

The NCLAT said -  "although we do not hold that that provisions of Sale of Goods Act and Transfer of Property Act are inconsistent or contrary as such to IBC, we hold that considering the provisions (as discussed in detail by the Adjudicating Authority) as found in Section 3(30) which defines “Secured Creditor” and Sections 3(31), 3(33) read with Section 238 of IBC, if benefit is to be taken under the provisions of IBC, it can be done if there was a contractual arrangement/transaction creating security interest in favour of the Creditor. It has to be a security interest which is “created” as such. IBC is complete Code in itself. 

The Appellant is claiming to be Secured Creditor on statutory basis. Admittedly, the Appellant is not relying on any contractual provision, or transaction creating security interest to claim benefits of lien/charge. Counsel for Appellant relied on “ICICI Bank Vs. Sidco Leathers” – (2006) 10 SCC 452 where inter alia it was considered that Section 529-A and Section 529 under the Companies Act, 1956 were silent on the question of inter se priority between Secured Creditors and Section 48 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applied. Reliance was also placed on “Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala” – (2009) 4 SCC 94 in which inter alia issue was State Legislators creating first charge on the property of dealer/person liable to pay sales tax and Section 34(1) of DRT Act and Section 35 of Securitisation Act, for enforcing security interest were examined and observation was that non- obstante clauses in said Central Acts could not render first charge created by said State enactments inoperative. 

In our humble opinion, the said Judgements do not help Appellant in interpretation and application of IBC in the manner in which Appellant wants. We agree with the Adjudicating Authority in this regard that the Appellant cannot be treated as Secured Creditor."

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