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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more