Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (7) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 361 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCHValidity of decision of the Liquidator of Kalisma Steel Pvt. Ltd. rejecting the Applicant’s claim as Financial Creditor as well as Operational Creditor - Section 42 r/w section 35 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 20 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016, Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - Liquidator informed the applicants that any Claim received after the last date of submission can be admitted only after specific orders from this Tribunal. HELD THAT:- It is noted that the Applicant being located out of the State was unaware of the order of liquidation dated 22.04.2021 as passed by the Tribunal, against the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant came to know of the commencement of liquidation process on 19.06.2021 from Mr. Modilal Pamecha, the valuer appointed by the Respondent. Therefore, the delay on part of the Applicant was unintentional and hence, this Bench hereby condones the delay, ordering the liquidator to consider the claims - This Tribunal is of the opinion that as per the document annexed in Exhibit C by the Applicant, the Corporate Debtor admits that the Applicant has made an advance against supplies with the interest @12% for an amount of Rs. 2 Cr. This shows that there was clearly a relationship of Debtor and Creditor between the Corporate Debtor and Applicant. Hence, the claim of the Respondent that it is neither a financial debt nor an operational debt is erroneous. This Tribunal relies upon the Supreme Court’s Judgement in M/s Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. M/s Hitro Energy Solutions (P) Ltd., [2022 (2) TMI 254 - SUPREME COURT], where in dealing with a case involving two controversial terms; “operational debt” and “operational creditor” of IBC, the 3-judges Bench explained that the appellant would be an operational creditor under the IBC, since an ‘operational debt’ will include a debt arising from a contract in relation to the supply of goods or services from the corporate debtor. Thus it is concluded that the appellant is an operational creditor under the IBC, since an ‘operational debt’ will include a debt arising from a contract in relation to the supply of goods or services from the corporate debtor. The Tribunal holds that there is no clarity regarding the second operational debt from both parties - the respondent are directed to verify the claim of the Corporate Debtor and submit the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor showing the relevant transactions and the Applicant is hereby directed to submit the copy of the Purchase Orders along with all the relevant clauses - application disposed off.
|