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

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more