Skip to main content

NCLT: Advance paid for purchase of shares of Corporate Debtor does not fall under definition of Financial Debt

Cause Title : Jushya Realty Private Limited vs Ninety Properties Private Limited, CP (IB) No.949/MB-IV/2021, National Company Law Tribunal (Mumbai)

Date of Judgment/Order : 03.02.2023

Corum : Mr. Prabhat Kumar (Technical) & Mr. Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial)

Citied: 

Background

The Financial Creditor agreed to purchase 100% of share capital of the Corporate Debtor held by its Shareholders/promoters for a lumpsum consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/- and paid an advance payment of Rs. 1,25,00,000 to the Corporate Debtor towards this transaction on 17.12.2014 which was stated as as “advance from debtors” under the head “other current liabilities” by the Corporate Debtor.

When the CD failed to provide documents to complete due diligence, the FC asked the CD for refund but the CD denied all existence of any advance. Thereafter FC filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 claiming this advanced payment is in nature of financial debt.

Judgment

From plain reading of the definition of "financial debt" under Section 5(8) of the Code, the NCLT declared that amount of advance paid for purchase of shares of the Corporate Debtor does not fall under the definition of Financial Debt as it was not disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money. It is further noted that such advance also does not fall within the inclusive definition part as contained in clause (a) to (i) and Since, the amount in default is not a financial debt, accordingly, the applicant is not a financial creditor in terms of sec 5(7) of the Code.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

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