Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1803 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of Application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of the debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - whether return of advance in breach of terms in the mandate letter signed and executed by the operational creditor in favour of the corporate debtor dated 07/09/2016 comes under the purview of operational debt? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the applicant herein neither did render any service to the corporate debtor nor did provide any goods to the corporate debtor. There is also no agreement entered into as such in connection with any service or services of goods by the operational creditor to the corporate debtor nor did the corporate debtor enter into an agreement with the operational creditor. What is relied upon is a mandate letter. What I understood is that the corporate debtor is a service provider dealing with the financial advice and issued mandate letter dated 16/08/2016 prescribing certain terms and conditions so as to provide advice to the operational creditor and that letter has been signed by the operational creditor and has paid ₹ 3 Lakhs as advance. Alleging breach of term on the side of the corporate debtor, this application was filed contending that the applicant is an operational creditor. The operational creditor, in the case in hand, does not fall within the above referred 3 elements of the definition of operational creditor. Therefore, the claim of the applicant here in this case does not fall within the definition of operational debt - application dismissed - petition dismissed.
|