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

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