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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more