Skip to main content

Only amount directly lent to Corporate Debtor qualifies as Financial Debt

Cause Title : M/s Actioncor Consultants Private Limited vs M/s. Viprah Technologies Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 916/2019, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal At Chennai

Date of Judgment/Order : 01/06/2023

Corum : Justice M. Venugopal (Member Judicial) & Shreesha Merla (Member Technical)

Citied: 

Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors.

Background

While the Respondent, M/s. Viprah Technologies Limited was under BIFR, the MD and another director of the company entered into an investment agreement with the Appellant for a loan of Rs. 1.25 cr. to repay the secured creditors. A property belonging to the the Director Mrs. Sujatha Ananth was deposited as security. When the company did not repay a notice was issued to and subsequently an application was filed under Section 7 before NCLT which was rejected by the NCLT.

In their appeal, the Applicant argued that the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the Appellant is not a Party to the ‘Investment Agreement’ is erroneous as the name of the Appellant is expressly mentioned in the Agreement.

The Respondent submitted that there was no repayment obligation on the Respondent and no admitted liability, even as per the ‘BIFR’ Records and that the loans were taken by Mr. Subramanian and his wife Mrs. Sujatha in their personal capacity and there was no ‘Promise to pay’ the Corporate Debtor Company.

Judgment

The NCLAT observed that the Investment Agreement has been entered into between Mr. Subramanian and Mrs. Sujatha and the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor is not a Party to the Agreement, so there is no mention of the Corporate Debtor. It is also crystal clear from the Investment Agreement that the Properties of the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor Company were given as Securities to the Appellant herein and the same could be used for the ‘recovery’ of the amount payable to the Appellant, in the event that the Respondent failed to deregister itself from the ‘BIFR’ within one year of the Investment Agreement dated 14/07/2010.

The NCLAT then agreeing with the NCLT declared that as established though the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anuj Jain (supra), there should be a direct disbursal of the amount owed, Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor for the amount to be construed as a ‘Financial Debt’. The transaction should be a direct transaction between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor which has not happened here. Though it is not in dispute that the amounts were taken as loan by the Managing Director and Director, the fact remains that the Transactions were never directly with the Corporate Debtor Company. Amounts taken by their Directors in their personal capacity, though used for the business purposes of the Company, will not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘Financial Debt’ as defined under Section 5(8) of the Code.

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

Property can be sold on power of attorney - Delhi High Court

As reported in the Hindusthan Times on 5th May:-  http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Property-can-be-sold-on-power-of-attorney/Article1-1054964.aspx In a judgment that will benefit lakhs of Delhi residents living in co-operative housing societies and DDA flats, the Delhi High Court has quashed a Delhi government circular banning property sale in the Capital through general power of attorney (GPA). The court found that the directions in the circular, issued by the revenue department on April 27 last year, were contrary to the Supreme Court judgment dated October 11, 2011. The HC order will increase the number of saleable properties in Delhi and could bring down the value of freehold properties. According to realty watchers, on an average, around 20% of properties are registered through GPA transfers — a common way of selling leasehold properties and those that don’t have a clear title. The judgment came on a petition filed by a company, Pace Developers and ...
5 comments
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil...
3 comments
Read more