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

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

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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more