Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 873 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAIDismissal of Section 9 Petition on the ground that the ‘Settlement Agreement’ was anti-dated, unstamped and unregistered - Operational creditors - correctness of Petition filed in respect of claims arising under the Settlement Agreement - HELD THAT:- The very document which the ‘Appellant’ is relying upon establishes that the initial amount of Rs.50 lakhs was to be paid prior to 31.03.2018, and that the balance amount of Rs.4 Crores was to be paid in tranches, whereas it is not in dispute that the agreement is dated 01.11.2018 which is subsequent to the amount of Rs.50 lakhs, and to be paid on or before 31.03.2018. Therefore, this document substantiate that the ‘Settlement Agreement’ is anti-dated, apart from being unstamped and unregistered. The amount in Part IV of Form-5 mentioned as ‘Default’ is Rs.8,46,32,553/- as on 31.01.2021 whereas the amount in the ‘Settlement Agreement’ appears to have been reduced to around Rs.4 Crores. Admittedly, criminal cases were filed against the Corporate Debtor prior to the issuance of Section 8 Demand Notice’ under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Petition filed in respect of claims arising under the aforementioned Settlement Agreement [even if disputed herein] does not come within the definition of ‘Operational Debt’]. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of Judgments held that the IBC is not a ‘recovery mechanism’. Even if the Settlement Agreement is taken into consideration, this ‘Tribunal’ is of the earnest view that the claims arising under the ‘MOU’ lost the character of ‘Operational Debt’ and became a debt simpliciter. In respect of’ in the definition of Operational Debt cannot be interpreted widely so as to include any agreement between the parties which does not specifically pertain to the supply of goods or services. Keeping in view, the spirit of the Code, this ‘Tribunal’ is of the considered view that at best, the claims are contractual claims for which appropriate Civil Proceedings may lie. Appeal dismissed.
|