Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1471 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - operational creditor or not - lease - main contention of the Learned Counsel for Operational Creditor that the suit filed is for bare injunction and it is not for recovery of arrears of rent - pre-existing dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor approached the Civil Court and issue of arrears of rent was also looked into by the Civil Court. So the rent is an issue for consideration before the Civil Court. Secondly, the Civil Suit is pending by the date the Demand Notice was issued as well when the petition was filed. Dispute includes existence of Civil Suit or Arbitration proceedings as per definition contained in Section 5 (12) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. The Corporate Debtor has contended that as Petitioner does not fall within the definition of operational creditor and the arrears of rent cannot be treated as Operational Debt. Therefore, Petitioner cannot initiate proceedings under Section 9 of IBC. Whether dispute relating to immovable property falls within the definition of operational debt the definition of operational debt? - HELD THAT:- The Principal Bench, NCLT in Mrs. Parmod Yadav & Anr vs. Divine Infracon Private Limited. [2017 (11) TMI 194 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] has held that in relation to transaction of immovable property the same cannot be considered as a transaction falling under the term 'operation' and 'operational debt' unless such a transaction having a correlation of direct input to the output produced or supplied by the Corporate Debtor and hence we do not have any hesitation looking at any way in holding that the petitioner will not fall under the definition of Operational Creditor and the claim which is sought to be made cannot be considered as an operational debt.". Thus it can be concluded that the Petitioner will not fall under the definition of Operational Creditor and the claim made cannot be considered as an operational debt - petition dismissed.
|