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

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