Skip to main content

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020

Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023

Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT
  2. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
  3. Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018)
  4. Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021

Background

Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt to an 'operational debt' and not a financial one.

The CD said that it was franchiser of registered brokers in dealing in commodity, derivatives and contracts. The money given by the late husband was for investment in Futures and Options of stocks and commodities through the CD and not a loan. The said money was deployed on behalf of the late husband through the registered broker and therefore was neither a financial nor an operational debt.

Judgment

The NCLT observed that though written contract may not be necessary to prove a financial debt, however, the nature of the transaction is relevant to constitute financial debt within the meaning of section 5(8) of the IBC. The CD has stated that the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- received by it was not by way of a loan.

The amount received by the CD for arranging investment in Futures Contracts or Stocks cannot be regarded as a debt disbursed against the consideration for time value of money, that too when investment is done as a speculator through third party brokers. In order to constitute a “debt”, there must be a liability or obligation on the part of a person in respect of a claim which is due from any person. Otherwise, it cannot be regarded as a debt within the meaning of Section 3(11) of the IBC. Liability or obligation emanates from a written or oral agreement between the parties. In the instant case, there is nothing to indicate that there was any liability or obligation of the CD to return any money received by it from the Late husband of the FC. In the absence of any proof as to the nature of the transaction, mere admission of receipt of money by the CD does not qualify as a financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the IBC.

In view of these facts, it is important to emphasize that while a written contract is not an absolute prerequisite for establishing the existence of a financial debt, the Adjudicating Authority must ascertain that the initiation of CIRP is not done in mala fide and is genuinely aimed at resolving insolvency. In the current case, there is insufficient evidence to support the acceptance or admission of the current application.

The NCLT further observed that  presence of a loan agreement along with pertinent documents is imperative to substantiate the existence of a financial debt. 


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