Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (12) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1150 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyLiquidation of the Corporate Debtor - Financial debt or not - Resolution Professional rejected the claim stating that the applicant is not a Financial Creditor and that Term Loan Agreement dated 22.03.2017 executed between the applicant and the corporate debtor was novated by the Settlement Deed dated 04.09.2019 - Section 33 (2) of I&B Code - HELD THAT:- The pre-requisite for a debt to qualify as a ‘financial debt’ is that there must be a “disbursal” of money against the consideration for time value of money. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anuj Jain IRP for Jaypee Infratech Limited V. Axis Bank Limited [2020 (2) TMI 1259 - SUPREME COURT] has affirmed the above contention by holding that transactions under Section 5(8) would be falling within the ambit of ‘Financial Debt’ only if they carry the essential element of “disbursal”, and that too against the consideration for time value of money. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Union of India [2019 (8) TMI 532 - SUPREME COURT] has held that for a debt to correspond to the definition of a ‘Financial Debt’ under the Code, there must be “disbursal” which must be a disbursal of money and which must be against consideration for the time value of money. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has conclusively affirmed that there must be actual disbursal of money for a debt to be a financial debt. It is clear that the applicant’s claim falls under the preview of Financial Debt as defined under Section 5(8) of I&B Code, 2016, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money - Resolution Professional cannot reject a claim stating that financial debt of the applicant originating from the term loan agreement dated 22.03.2017 is merged with the amount settled under the Settlement Deed dated 04.09.2019 without classifying identity of financial debt. The merger of the financial debt and other multi claims emanating under different business transactions into a single settled amount between the parties are so complex making it impossible to cull out or identify the interfused financial debt from other claims or settled claims. The Resolution Professional cannot deny the claim of the applicant stating that a debt lost its character as a financial debt on the basis of amount settled under the Settlement Deed dated 04.09.2019. In the present case, the Interim Resolution Professional acted as an adjudicating authority and gone into the factual scenario between parties and determined their rights and liabilities. The task of the Interim Resolution Professional was to limit itself to confirm that the claims received by him are true and correct. Here, he failed to clear the contingency existed in the amount and to the best estimate of the amount of the claim based on the information available with him. Instead, the Interim Resolution Professional out-rightly rejected the claim of the applicant without verifying the claim. The application filed by the Interim Resolution Professional for Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under Section 33 (2) of I&B Code has been rejected - Application dismissed.
|