Skip to main content

Advance Paid Towards Service Is Operational Debt

Cause Title : Chipsan Aviation Private Limited vs Punj Llyod Aviation Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 261 of 2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

Date of Judgment/Order : 10th November, 2022

Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan Chairperson, Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Citied: Construction Consortium Limited vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Private Limited – (2022) SCC OnLine SC 142

Background

An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency Code was filed against the Corporate Debtor (Respondent) alleging an advanced of Rs. 60 lakhs was provided to the Respondent – Corporate Debtor for aviation related services, which services were not provided by the Corporate Debtor nor the advance paid by the Appellant was refunded. The advance payment was reflected in the Balance Sheets of the Corporate Debtor as as advance received from the customers under the head current liabilities. 

The Respondent refuted the claim stating that there was no privity of contract between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor and there is no Operational Debt in existence.

The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Section 9 Application holding that advance payment made by Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor does not fall within the four corners of the Operational Debt. The appeal was filed against said order.

Judgment

The NCLAT referring to the judgment in Construction Consortium Limited (supra) observed that it was held that advance payment is covered within the definition of Operational Debt. Section 5(21) defines “operational debt” as a “claim in respect of the provision of goods or services”. The phrase “in respect of” in Section 5(21) has to be interpreted in a broad and purposive manner in order to include all those who provide or receive operational services from the corporate debtor, which ultimately lead to an operational debt. The NCLAT thus set aside the order of NCLT.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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