Skip to main content

Date of decree cannot be brought forward/substituted with date of default

Cause Title : Venus Buildtech India Private Limited vs Senbo Engineering Limited, C.P. (IB) No. 60/KB/2021, National Company Law Tribunal Kolkata Bench

Date of Judgment/Order : 4/8/2023

Corum : Smt. Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial), Shri Balraj Joshi, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Jignesh Shah and Another v. Union of India and Another, (2019) 10 SCC 750
  2. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. Bishal Jaiswal and Another, (2021) 6 SCC 366
  3. V. Padamkumar Vs. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund (SASF) & Anr., C.A.(AT) (Ins) No. 57 of 2020
  4. SLB Welfare Assn. v. PSA IMPEX (P) Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 905 and 642 of 2022, decided on 04-11-2022
  5. Sri Subhankar Bhowmik v. Union of India and Anr., WP(C)(PIL) No.04/2022 decided on 14 March, 2022

Background

Venus Buildtech had originally filed a suit under order 37 CPC in the month of November, 2010 before the ADJ, Delhi which was decided and decree and as per the said order/judgement dated 12 September, 2017, Venus Buildtech is entitled to recover the Principal Suit amount of Rs.77,10,967/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Lac Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Seven only) along with interest @ 9% per annum on the money decree from the Senbo Engineering. The same is still outstanding and payable by Senbo Engineering to Venus Buildtech despite repeated follow ups, communications for several months.

Subsequently, Venus Buildtech  filed application as an 'Operational Creditor' before the NCLT on 17 February, 2021 and the date of default is stated to be as on 06 March, 2020 i.e., the date of execution order of the decree.

The Corporate Debtor raised objections stating that the review petition filed by the Corporate Debtor has been registered as Misc. DJ No.66 of 2021 and the same is pending for hearing before the Hon’ble Court  and therefore the debt is not undisputed and has not attained finality, thus, there exists ‘pre-existing disputes’ between the parties.

Judgment

The NCLT observed that two questions need to be answered :-

1) Can the date of default be shifted forward to the date of decree?
2) Can a decree holder file an application under section 9 of the Code?

On the first question, the Ld. NCLT quoting the above judgments, held that a suit for recovery of money can be filed only when there is a default of dues. Even if the decree is passed, the date of default cannot be shift forward to the date of decree or date of payment for execution as a decree can be executed within specified period i.e. 12 years. If it is executable within the period of limitation, one cannot allege that there is a default of decree or payment of dues. Therefore, a Judgment or a decree passed by a Court for recovery of money by Civil Court/ Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot shift forward the date of default for the purpose of computing the period for filing an application under Section 7 of the ‘I&B Code’.

As for the second question, again referring to the judgments the NCLT held that the IBC treats decree holders as a separate class, recognized by virtue of the decree held. The IBC does not provide for any malleability or overlap of classes of creditors to enable decree holders to be classified as financial or operational creditors. 

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