Skip to main content

Nature of Financial Debt does not change on account of breach of consent terms

Cause Title : Priyal Kantilal Patel vs IREP Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1423 of 2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

Date of Judgment/Order : 01.02.2023

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

Citied: 

  1. Amrit Kumar Agrawal Vs. Tempo Appliances Pvt. Ltd. [2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1202] 
  2. Dr. Gopal Krishnan MS & Anr. Vs. Mr. Ravindra Beleyur & Anr. [CA(AT)(CH)(INS) No. 316 of 2022]

Background

An application under Section 7 was filed by the Financial Creditor- Debenture Holder. Subsequently, a consent terms was entered between the parties with other stakeholders. According to the consent terms, the Financial Creditor-Respondent herein agreed to withdraw the Company Petition. When the consent terms was defaulted, the cheques which were issued by the Corporate Debtor were dishonored. The Financial Creditor instead of reviving earlier company petition, filed a fresh company petition and based his claim on the basis of the initial financial debt as was claimed in the original application and in the application has also given the details of the consent terms and the subsequent event which took place. When the said company petition was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority, appeal was filed against the Impugned Order.

The primary objection of the Appellant was that there being breach of the consent terms, Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor was not maintainable since breach of consent terms does not furnish any right to initiate Section 7 Application, since breach of consent terms can not be treated to be financial debt.

Judgment

The NCLAT opined that the judgement  “Amrit Kumar Agrawal” (supra) was a case where section 7 application was filed on the ground of default in payment of settlement agreement where the court held that default in payment of settlement agreement does not constitute a financial debt. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. Present is not a case where Section 7 Application has been filed only on the ground of default in the settlement agreement rather section 7 application has been filed on the basis of original financial debt which was extended by the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor. The mere fact that in earlier company petition, consent terms was arrived, which consent terms was breached by the corporate debtor, the financial debt which was claimed by the financial creditor would not be wiped out nor the nature and character of financial debt shall be changed on account of breach of the consent terms. Permitting such interpretation shall be giving premium to the corporate debtor who breach the consent terms. Another judgement which has been relied on by Learned Counsel for the Appellant is “Dr. Gopal Krishnan MS”, (supra) which is also judgement relying on “Amrit Kumar Agrawal”. The court in the facts of the said case came to the conclusion that debt is not a financial debt. The above judgement is also clearly distinguishable.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

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