Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Anand Gupta & Another vs Vardhman Realtech Private Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal16 August 2023Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Appellant, being a co-participant in a joint venture holding a 19% shareholding and not a lender of money disbursed against the time value of money, does not hold a "financial debt" within the meaning of the Code, and an application under Section 7 founded on such a relationship cannot be entertained. Observations made by the Adjudicating Authority on a matter not necessary to the dismissal of the Section 7 application do not bind or prejudice the Appellant in pursuing any remedy available to him in accordance with law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1065 of 2023&I.A. No. 3640 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:

Anand Gupta & Anr. ...Appellant

Versus

Vardhman Realtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Singla, K.C. Joshi, Advocates For Respondent:

ORDER

16.08.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 09th May, 2023 by

which order the Application filed under Section 7 of I&B Code, 2016 has been

rejected.

3. The Appellant has filed the Application under Section 7 claiming to be

financial debt due and payable by the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating

Authority took the view that a Letter of Intent was issued in which both the

parties were Joint Venture Partners and there was no financial debt to enable

the Appellant to proceed under Section 7 of the Code. It is noted that under

Letter of Intent dated 09.03.2016 theAppellant has 19% shareholding of the

Joint Venture Partners and the balance lay with the Corporate Debtor. -2-

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating

Authority while recording findings have also returned a finding in Paragraph

12(d) with regard to payment made by Ambaashree in relation to project which

may affect the Appellant when the appropriate remedy is availed by the

Appellant to protect his interest.

5. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant, we are of the view that

in so far as finding of the Adjudicating Authority that both the parties being a

joint venture partners and Appellant has 19% shareholding, there was no

financial debt hence the Application under Section 7 of the Code could not be

entertained. We see no error. We however are of the view that observations

made in the order in paragraph 12(d) of the order shall not come in the way of

the Appellant when any remedy is availed by the Appellant for protecting the

interest of the Appellant in accordance with law.

With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1065/2023

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free