Skip to main content

NCLT : Landowner in a Development Agreement is not a Financial Creditor

Cause Title : Ashoka Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Sanjay Kundra & Anr., National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 46 of 2023

Date of Judgment/Order : 18.01.2023

Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) & Barun Mitra (Member-Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416
  2. Namdeo Ramchandra Patil and Ors. Vs. Vishal Ghisulal Jain, Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 821 and 930 of 2021 decided on 19.09.202
  3. Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited vs. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 401

Background

Appellant was a land owner on which a development project was to be constructed by the Corporate Debtor and he had filed the claim before the Resolution Professional which was admitted and he was inducted in the Committee of Creditors however subsequently on an Application filed by the Home-Buyers, impugned Order has been passed removing the Appellant from the Committee of Creditors holding that he is not the financial creditor.

Appellant challenged the Order by referring to the Development Agreement between the parties which  clearly indicates that Appellant is an owner of 11.40 acres agriculture land on which development agreement, construction to be executed. The agreement further states that corporate debtor was to carry on the construction and the out of total saleable construction, 32% will be of the Appellant that is the first party and remaining 68% shall be owned by the second party, the Corporate Debtor.

Looking into the terms and conditions of the development agreement, the Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that the Appellant was not a financial creditor since no amount was disbursed for the time value of money on the basis of which the Appellant can be held to be financial creditor.

Judgment

The Ld. NCLAT rejecting the appeal and referring to Namdeo Ramchandra (supra), observed that as per the the definition of “financial debt” in Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,  a “debt” must be “disbursed” against the consideration for time value of money. Disbursement” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.) to mean:
1. The act of paying out money, commonly from a fund or in settlement of a debt or account payable.
2. The money so paid; an amount of money given for a particular purpose.

The requirement of existence of a debt, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money, remains an essential part even in respect of any of the transactions/dealings stated in the clauses, even if it is not necessarily stated therein. The definition cannot be read so broadly that any transaction could stand alone to become a financial debt. 

This debt may be of any nature but a part of it is always required to be carrying, or corresponding to, or at least having some traces of disbursal against consideration for the time value of money.

In view of the above judgments, the NCLAT concluded that the terms and conditions of development agreement entered between the appellant and the corporate debtor, makes it clear that the appellant was a collaborator in the development agreement and not a financial creditor. There was no disbursement for time value of money by the appellant within meaning of Section 5(8) of the IBC.


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