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

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

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more