Skip to main content

Clubbing of charges with principal amount to cross minimum threshold limit

Cause Title : North West Carrying Company, LLP vs Metro Cash and Carry India Pvt. Ltd, CP (IB) No.133/BB/2022, National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru Bench

Date of Judgment/Order : 25/5/2023

Corum : Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) T. Krishnavalli, Member (Judicial) & Hon’ble Shri. Manoj Kumar Dubey, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Prashat Agarwal v. Vikash Parasrampuria, Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 690 of 2022 dated 15.07.2022
  2. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs Tulip Star Hotels Limited & Ors, 2022 SCC Online SC 944 

Background

The petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, r/w. Rule 6 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016, was filed by M/s North West Carrying Company, LLP. - ‘Operational Creditor/Petitioner’ to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Metro Cash and Carry India Pvt. Ltd  on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has committed a default for a total outstanding amount of Rs. 1,63,71,799/-.

The Respondent argued that the principal amount is only Rs. 12,46,204/- and other amounts as claimed by the petitioner i.e interest, legal charges, balance cost of amortization, notice period rent neither forms part of any contractual arrangement nor can even be considered as an operational debt. The petitioner purposefully clubbed these amounts with the principal amount to arrive at the minimum threshold of Rs.1 crore for complying with the provisions of Section 4 of IBC, which cannot be done.

Judgment

The NCLT observed that in Prashat Agarwal (supra) it has been held that the total amount for maintainability of claim will include both principal debt amount as well as interest on delayed payment in case the same was stipulated in the invoice. In other decisions it has been decided that only if interest was to be levied in accordance with some agreement between the two parties, can it be considered for inclusion for the purpose of Section 9 of the Code.

Therefore the NCLT held that in order to club other charges with the principal amount express stipulation has to be incorporated specifically in the agreement, the purchase order or the invoice and in the absence of the same, neither interest nor any other charges can be clubbed with the principal amount which has not happened in this matter. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention in this regard is devoid of merit.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more