NCLT’s CIRP Plea Admission was Overturned as IBC doesn’t cover Increased Interest Recovery
- News|Blog|Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code|
- 3 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 10 April, 2023
Case Details: Anita Jindal v. Jindal Buildtech (P.) Ltd. - [2023] 148 taxmann.com 398 (NCLAT-New Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Anant Bijay Singh, Judicial Member & Ms Shreesha Merla, Technical Member
- Abhijeet Sinha, Adv. for the Appellant.
- Ms Priya Hingorani, Sr. Adv., Himanshu Yadav & Swati Saluja, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the respondent No. 2 (i.e. financial creditor) advanced a certain amount to the corporate debtor as a short-term loan, and the corporate debtor issued two post-dated cheques for Rs. 57 lakhs and 30.5 lakhs with the intention of providing security for the amount lent.
However, the said cheques were returned unpaid by the bank with the remark ‘insufficient funds’. Consequently, the respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings at a 6% interest against the corporate debtor under u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
During the ongoing proceedings, the corporate debtor paid an amount of Rs. 67.90 lakhs along with an interest of 6% vide a demand draft as per the directions of the Trial Court.
Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 filed an application u/s 7 for initiation of the CIRP against the corporate debtor, claiming an amount of Rs. 87.50 including 18% of interest. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) by the impugned order, admitted the said application and initiated the CIRP against the corporate debtor.
Thereafter, an appeal was made to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the order passed by the NCLT.
NCLAT Held
The NCLAT observed that the NCLT is not a debt collection forum and IBC cannot be purely used to initiate the CIRP to penalize solvent company for non-payment of dues.
The NCLAT, further observed that having accepted 6% interest, the second respondent was now claiming an interest at 18% p.a., recovery proceedings of this nature did not fall within the scope and ambit of words ‘for any purpose other than resolution’ as defined under section 65.
Therefore, the instant appeal was to be allowed and the impugned order of the NCLT was to be set aside.
List of Cases Reviewed
-
- Vinay Yadav v. Jindal Buildtech (P.) Ltd. [2023] 147 taxmann.com 603 (NCLT – CHD.) (para 17) reversed. [See Annex].
- Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 252/173 SCL 355/233 Comp Case 544 (SC)/2022 SCC OnLine SC 841 (para 10)
- S.T. Sahib v. Hasan Ghani Sahib 1956 SCC OnLine Mad 344 (para 16) followed.
List of Cases Referred to
-
- Pioneer Urban Land v. Union of India [2019] 108 taxmann.com 147/155 SCL 622/217 Comp Case 1 (SC)/[2019] 8 SCC 416 (para 2)
- Union of India v. Watkins Mayor AIR 1966 SC 275 (para 2)
- Orator Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. Samtex Desinz (P.) Ltd. [2021] 128 taxmann.com 424/167 SCL 610/228 Comp Case 102 (SC) (para 3)
- Metropolis Travels & Resorts (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Sumit Kalra [2002] 98 DLT 573 (para 3)
- ICRI Research (P.) Ltd. v. Bon Lon Securities Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 317 (Delhi) (para 3)
- Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [2010] 100 SCL 389/AIR 2010 SC 1898 (para 3)
- Madhusudan Tanita v. Amit Chorarira [2021] 131 taxmann.com 144 (NCL-AT) (para 3)
- Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [2017] 84 taxmann.com 320/140 CLA 39/143 SCL 625/4 Comp. LJ 193/205 Comp Case 57 (SC)/[2018] 1 SCC 407 (para 3)
- Swiss Ribbons (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2019] 101 taxmann.com 389/152 SCL 365/213 Comp Case 198 (SC)/[2019] 4 SCC 17 (para 3)
- Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 252/173 SCL 355/233 Comp Case 544 (SC)/2022 SCC Online SC 841 (para 10)
- Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 292/140 CLA 123/144 SCL 37/4 Comp. LJ 255/205 Comp Case 324 (SC)/[2018] 1 SCC 353 (para 14)
- Binani Industries Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda [2018] 99 taxmann.com 164/150 SCL 703 (NCL-AT) (para 14)
- Asset Advisory Services India (P.) Ltd. v. VSS Projects (P.) Ltd. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 18 (NCLT – Hyd.) (para 14)
- Praveen Kumar Mundra v. CIL Securities Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 439/154 SCL 574/2019 SCC Online NCLAT 334 (NCL-AT) (para 14)
- S.T. Sahib v. Hasan Ghani Sahib 1956 SCC Online Mad. 344 (para 16).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied