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

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