2025 (6) TMI 773 - HC - IBC

Refund of security deposit - claims of Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC sister concerns of the Defendant which were the basis for withholding the security deposit stood discharged pursuant to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) or not - HELD THAT;- The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and others 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT has clearly held that one of the principal objects of the IBC is providing for revival of the corporate debtor and to make it a going concern. The IBC is a complete Code in itself. Upon admission of a petition under Section 7 there are various important duties and functions entrusted to RP and CoC. RP is required to issue a publication inviting claims from all the stakeholders. He is required to collate the said information and submit necessary details in the Information Memorandum. The resolution applicants submit their plans on the basis of the details provided in the information memorandum. The Hon ble Supreme Court has also held that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the IBC the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees members creditors Government guarantors and other stakeholders. That on the date of approval of the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority all such claims which are not a part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of a claim which is not part of the resolution plan. Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues if not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 can be continued. Therefore once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors and which has received the imprimatur of the NCLT it binds all the stakeholders and the Corporate Debtor which emerges from the CIRP begins on a clean slate with no continuing liabilities on account of claims whether decided or undecided. Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC as noted above had made a claim as Operational Creditors and have also received their claims as per the amended resolution plan approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Plaintiff accordingly emerges from the CIRP on a clean slate with no continuing liabilities on account of claims decided or undecided. In Uttam Singh Duggal Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and others 2000 (8) TMI 1125 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court has with regard to the object of Order XXII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 observed that the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on an admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment and that the Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the Court can draw inference on the basis of the pleadings in the shape of application made under the Rule. In the case of Karam Kapahi and others vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and another 2010 (4) TMI 1120 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that the principles behind Order XXII Rule 6 are to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment and that the said provision is to be exercised by the Court suo motu ex debito justitiae . That keeping the width of this provision (i.e. Order XXII Rule 6) in mind the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that under this Rule admissions can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. In Khan Bahadur Shapoor Freedom Mazda Vs. Durga Prasad Chamaria 1961 (3) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT it has been held that acknowledgments must indicate the jural relationship and that they must be construed liberally even though they do not specify the exact nature and specific character of the liability for it to constitute an extension of limitation. The admissions are unambiguous not only based upon the judicial admissions on the basis of pleadings as noted above but also upon the undisputed inferences based on material on record including the decision dated 15th November 2019 of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and others 2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT and the undisputed position that Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC have received the monies as per the approved resolution plan and the other claims having stood extinguished and the Plaintiff discharged and no person being entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan in view of the clean slate principle as enunciated by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT . Considering the object of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC of speedy judgment in the circumstances of this case therefore no useful purpose will be served in sending the matter to trial. Conclusion - i) Once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31 the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees members creditors including the Central Government any State Government or any local authority guarantors and other stakeholders. ii) The object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant the plaintiff is entitled. iii) The application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is maintainable and no useful purpose will be served in sending the matter to trial. iv) The Suit accordingly stands decreed ordering the Defendant to pay Rs. 19, 55, 00, 000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum till realization. The suit stands decreed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

(i) Whether the Defendant is liable to refund the security deposit of Rs. 19.55 crores held by it on behalf of the Plaintiff, given the admitted facts and correspondence between the parties.

(ii) Whether the claims of Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC, sister concerns of the Defendant, which were the basis for withholding the security deposit, stood discharged pursuant to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

(iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) based on the admissions made by the Defendant and subsequent events.

(iv) The effect of the CIRP moratorium and the approved resolution plan on the claims and liabilities between the parties.

(v) Whether the Defendant's contention that the deposit was never meant to be returned and that the suit claim is barred by limitation is tenable.

(vi) The applicability and interpretation of judicial admissions and the scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC in the context of this dispute.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Refund Security Deposit

The Defendant had received Rs. 25 crores as a security deposit from the Plaintiff to procure raw materials from suppliers identified by the Defendant's group companies (Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC). The Defendant refunded only Rs. 5.45 crores, withholding Rs. 19.55 crores, claiming it was security against outstanding dues of the Plaintiff to the group companies.

The Defendant's pleadings, emails dated 12th July 2013 and 23rd May 2014, and affidavits repeatedly acknowledged holding the amount as security deposit and agreed to return it once the Plaintiff cleared dues to Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC. These constitute judicial admissions under Section 58 of the Evidence Act. The Defendant did not claim ownership of the deposit nor that it supplied goods to the Plaintiff, confirming the deposit nature of the sum.

The Defendant's contention that the deposit was forfeited or was a payment is contradicted by its own admissions and correspondence, which clearly treat the amount as a security deposit to be returned upon discharge of the Plaintiff's obligations.

2. Effect of CIRP and Approved Resolution Plan on Claims

The CIRP against the Plaintiff was initiated on 2nd August 2017 under Section 7 IBC, imposing a moratorium on litigation. Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC filed operational creditor claims, which were admitted by the Resolution Professional (RP) with a notional value of Rs. 1 and Rs. 2.18 crores respectively.

The Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved a resolution plan on 23rd October 2018, later approved by the NCLT and finally by the Supreme Court on 15th November 2019. Payments pursuant to the plan were made to Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC on 16th December 2019, discharging the debts owed by the Plaintiff to these entities.

The Supreme Court's decision in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and others establishes that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 IBC, it binds all stakeholders and extinguishes all claims not part of the plan, ensuring the corporate debtor emerges on a "clean slate" free of prior liabilities.

Following this principle, the debts owed by the Plaintiff to Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC stood extinguished, removing the basis on which the Defendant withheld the security deposit.

3. Entitlement to Decree on Admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC

The Plaintiff sought a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on the Defendant's judicial admissions acknowledging the security deposit and the condition of its return upon discharge of dues to group companies.

The Court examined the scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, relying on authoritative precedents including Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and Karam Kapahi vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, which emphasize the Rule's object to enable speedy judgment on admitted claims and that admissions can be inferred from pleadings and affidavits.

The Defendant argued that the admissions were conditional and that the suit raised triable issues, but the Court held that the condition (payment of dues to Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC) had been fulfilled by the CIRP payments, making the admissions unconditional in effect.

The Defendant's contention that the application sought to re-agitate issues already decided in summons for judgment was rejected since the material events (discharge of debts via CIRP) occurred after the order granting unconditional leave to defend.

4. Limitation and Ownership of Deposit

The Defendant contended the claim was barred by limitation and that the deposit was not the Plaintiff's property. The Court found that the Defendant's emails dated 12th July 2013 and 23rd May 2014 constituted acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, extending limitation. The suit was filed within three years of the last acknowledgment.

Regarding ownership, the Defendant admitted the amount was a security deposit held on behalf of the Plaintiff and not the Defendant's property. The Plaintiff remained the owner of the deposit notwithstanding the corporate insolvency proceedings.

5. Impact of Arbitration Proceedings and Foreign Law

The Defendant relied on LCIA arbitration awards governed by English law, contending they were unaffected by the CIRP moratorium. The Court noted that Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC participated in the CIRP and their claims were discharged under the resolution plan, rendering the arbitration claims irrelevant for the present suit.

Moreover, payments made by the Defendant to Moorgate UK pursuant to arbitration awards did not affect the Plaintiff's right to the security deposit, as the Plaintiff was not a party to those proceedings.

6. Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Court carefully considered the Defendant's arguments regarding conditional admissions, limitation, ownership, forfeiture, and arbitration but found them inconsistent with the documentary evidence, judicial admissions, and the binding effect of the approved resolution plan under the IBC.

The Defendant's reliance on prior orders granting leave to defend was held to be inapplicable to the changed circumstances post-CIRP.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the Defendant held the Rs. 19.55 crores as a security deposit to be returned to the Plaintiff upon discharge of the Plaintiff's liabilities to Moorgate UK and Moorgate DMCC. Since those liabilities were discharged under the CIRP resolution plan, the Defendant's right to withhold the deposit ceased.

The judicial admissions made by the Defendant in pleadings and affidavits were unambiguous and supported by correspondence, justifying a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The claim was not barred by limitation, and the arbitration proceedings did not affect the Plaintiff's entitlement to the deposit.

The Court allowed the application and passed a decree directing the Defendant to pay Rs. 19.55 crores with interest at 24% per annum from the due date till realization.

Significant Holdings:

"The legislative intent behind [Section 31 IBC] is to freeze all the claims so that the resolution applicant starts on a clean slate and is not flung with any surprise claims."

"Once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders."

"The object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled."

"Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof."

"The Defendant does not have any claim on the money nor had the Defendant supplied any goods to the Plaintiff. The money is a deposit which admittedly is to be returned to the Plaintiff."

"The Defendant's emails dated 12th July, 2013 and 23rd May, 2014 clearly indicate acknowledgment of liability to repay the outstanding security deposit amount, thereby extending the period of limitation."

"The Defendant's contention that the admissions are conditional is untenable as the condition has been fulfilled by the discharge of debts under the approved resolution plan."

"The application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is maintainable and no useful purpose will be served in sending the matter to trial."

"The Suit accordingly stands decreed in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the Plaint, ordering the Defendant to pay Rs. 19,55,00,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum till realization."