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

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