Skip to main content

Insolvency: Filling of application by a Decree Holder under the IB Code

Citation : Mukul Agarwal, Ex-Director, Greatech Telecom Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs Royale Resinex Pvt. Ltd. & Others

Date of Judgment/Order : 30th March, 2022

Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

Corum : Ashok Bhushan, J.

Background

Appeal was filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor aggrieved by the judgment of the NCLT, Delhi admitting an Application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Respondent No. 1 as an Operational Creditor.

One of the objections raised by Appellant was that the Application under Section 9 of the Code was filed by the Operational Creditor on the basis of Decree of the Civil Court dated 08.09.2016. The Application filed on the basis of Decree of Civil Court cannot be said to be an Application for an ‘operational debt’. The Respondent was not an Operational Creditor and no ‘operational debt’ being due on the Corporate Debtor, hence, the Application under Section 9 was not maintainable.

Judgment

NCLAT looking into the transaction of account on which debt fell due, clearly that transaction was for supply of poly propylene by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor and due to non-payment of the amount towards the material supplied by the Operational Creditor, the amount became due. The amount due, thus, is an amount under the provisions of goods and is fully covered with the definition of Section 5(21) of the Code and the said claim is therefore an Operational Debt.

The NCLAT observed that the mere fact that when the Corporate Debtor did not pay the amount, suit for recovery was filed in the year 2016 by the Operational Creditor, which was also Decreed on 08.09.2016, does not in any manner effect the transaction out of which the amount fell due. The fact that amount was adjudicated and a Decree was passed, in no manner take away the nature of ‘operational debt’.

When the Form-3 under The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, itself contemplates about giving details of particular of an order of Court, the Decree of the Civil Court in favour of the Operational Creditor, it in no manner affect the maintainability of the Application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Code.

Based on the above the NCLAT reached the conclusion that that the Application filed by Respondent under Section 9 was fully maintainable and the claim of the Respondent was a claim of ‘operational debt’.

Note:

The issue of the IB Code with Decree Holder is continuing. For example, in this matter while it may be that the Applicant is/was a Operational Creditor, the Application was filed as a Decree Holder and as clearly stated by the Supreme Court in Sri Subhankar Bhowmik vs Union of India and Anr., WP(C)(PIL) No.04/2022, a Decree Holder is a specific type of a creditor under IB Code as mentioned in Section 3(10) of the IBC. So the question is can a person approaching the NCLT with a decree file application as an Operational Creditor.

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

NCLT - Board meetings by video-conferencing

In Achintya Kumar Barua vs. Ranjit Barthkur, the NCLAT has held recently that if any director desires to attend board meetings by video conferencing, the company is bound to allow attendance in this manner. In other words, it is not up to the company or at the discretion of the Chairman/Company Secretary whether or not to allow attendance by video conferencing. The right and option is with any director who so desires. NCLAT has held that the words of Section 173(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 are clear on this. There are, of course, some specified resolutions which cannot be considered in a meeting held by video-conference. However, a proviso inserted to Section 173(2) by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, though not yet brought into effect, says that even in respect of these matters, if the required quorum is physically present, other directors can attend and participate by video-conferencing.
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