Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (6) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 459 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyInsolvency Resolution Process - proof of outstanding financial debt - petitioner claims to be a financial creditor, claiming a financial debt of ₹ 30,69,000/- from the Corporate Debtor - Held that:- The case of the petitioner was one for purchase of any immovable property to be developed and for which assured returns were undertaken to be given. The Principal Bench, in the matter of Nikhil Mehta & Sons and others Vs. M/s AMR Infrastructures Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 151 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI ] has already elucidated that the liability towards assured returns in matters of booking commercial flats would not fall within the definition of a financial debt which essentially means a debt disbursed against consideration for the value of money, or money borrowed against payment of interest, while the concept of Assured Returns typically requires full payment towards the property to be developed, and perhaps leased out for the owner by the developer on rentals, but pending that stage, the developer pays a Return on the property from day one. As pending completion it cannot be termed as Rent, the return is given and taxed under the Head “Interest”. The petitioner's claim herein is more encumbered and complex than a plain and simple claim against assured returns. The present transaction is based on multiple contractual novated agreements. The initial foundation was with one entity, the liability of which was taken over by another. The payment was made towards development and delivery of a property changed for another. The agreement relied upon contained the provision for appointment of a named arbitrator which though invoked, did not materialize. Further, dispute with respect to the liability has been raised and as the return of the principal amount is not disputed, the liability towards any interest/assured returns on the proposed property in terms of the agreements, essentially towards for purchase of a piece of property, would not fall within the purview of the financial debt as defined under the Code for initiating Insolvency Resolution Process. Merely because an assured amount of return has been promised, which is termed as interest under Section 194A of the I.T. Act, for the period till the property is developed and handed over, it would not acquire the status of a financial debt as it is not money loaned to be recovered with interest. This Bench is of the opinion that the aforesaid transaction between the parties would not fall within the definition of a “financial debt” so as to invoke Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor.
|