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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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