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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more