Skip to main content

No ‘Secured Creditor’ status to financier If Hypothecation Charge Not Registered

In Volkswagen Finance Private Ltd. Vs Shree Balaji Printopack Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi), appeal was filed against the  dismissal of application by the Adjudicating Authority seeking a direction to set aside the Order of the Liquidator rejecting the ‘Claim’ of the Appellant.

The facts in brief are that the Company (under Liquidation) namely Shree Balaji Printopack Pvt. Ltd. executed a Loan and Hypothecation Agreement on 25.11.2013, for an amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- payable in 84 monthly instalments of Rs. 61,964/- each from 15.12.2013 to 15.11.2020, for the purchase of an AUDI Q3 TDI 2.0 vehicle. It was stated by the Appellant that they have security of the vehicle in terms of Sections 52 and 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It was averred that a demand of Rs. 21,83,819.18/- was made which was not paid and hence there was a ‘default’ and the amount became ‘due and payable’.

The Learned Adjudicating Authority had appointed a Liquidator vide Order dated 03.04.2019 and Claims were invited from the Creditors as per the provisions of the Code. The Applicant namely, M/s. Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd. filed its claim on 22.07.2019 with the copies of the Loan Agreement, the Hypothecation Deed, the Demand Letter and the Registration Certificate of the vehicle together with the invoices concerned for the consideration of the Liquidator. The Applicant had informed the Liquidator that the ‘Charge’ was duly registered by way of hypothecation registration with the Regional Transport Office (RTO) in terms of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). It is the Applicant’s case that there was no requirement of registration of ‘Charge’ with the R.O.C and that the Liquidator, without examining the Certificate issued by the Registration Authority under the ‘M.V. Act’ dismissed the Claim made by the Applicant on the ground that 

i) the Applicant was not a ‘Secured Financial Creditor’ in the absence of the ‘Charge’ being registered with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) under Section 77 (1) of the Companies Act 2013 with respect to the Subject Property.

ii) that the Appellant was not a Secured Creditor entitled to realise the security interest in accordance with Section 52(1)(b) of the Code.

iii) that the Registration of Hypothecation by way of ‘Charge’ under Section 51 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would stand nullified, if the ‘Charge’ was not registered under the Companies Act, 1956/2013.

The NCLAT dismissing the appeal observed that it is clear from Section 52(3)(a) of the Code that before any security interest is sought to be realised by the Secured Creditor under this Section, the Liquidator shall verify such security interest and permit the Secured Creditors to realise only such security interest, the existence of which may be proved either by the records of such security interest maintained by an ‘Information Utility’ or by such other means as may be specified by the Board and Section 52 (3) read with the aforenoted Regulation 21 stipulates that the proof of security interest is ascertained from records available with the ‘Information Utility’ as per the Code; through the Certificate of Registration of ‘Charge’ issued by the ROC under Section 77 of the Companies Act 2013/Section 125 of the Companies Act 1956, or, if there is any proof of Registration of ‘Charge’ with Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India.From the documentary evidence on record it is clear that no ‘Charge’ has been registered under the provisions of Section 77(1) of the Companies Act 2013, in relation to the Subject Property. The Liquidator has rightly referred to Regulation 21 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016 and observed that the Appellants ‘Claim’ was not supported by any evidence as prescribed under the said Regulation. It is also an admitted fact that the ‘Charge’ was not registered under Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India.

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more