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

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