Black Rock Financial Services Private ... vs Piramal Capital & Housing Finance ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 379 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A preferential transaction under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be avoided only as against a person who is a creditor of the corporate debtor; a party who is not a creditor of the corporate debtor cannot be a proper respondent to an avoidance application under that provision and must be deleted from it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Black Rock Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Abhijit Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B.F., Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Chitra Rentala, Ms. Kriti Srivastava, Mr. Manikanda Prabhu, Ms. Shatakshi Tripathi, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
28.03.2024: Heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned senior counsel for the
Appellant and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. This Appeal has
been filed against order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated
04.01.2024 by which I.A. No.3126 of 2023 filed by the Appellant has been
rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant was not a
creditor of the Corporate Debtor which is essential condition for holding any
transaction as preferential transaction under Section 43. It is submitted that
the Appellant was not a creditor and his name ought not to have been
impleaded in I.A. No.2524 of 2020, which was avoidance application.
Cont'd.../ -2-
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent does not dispute the submission
that Appellant is not a creditor. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits
that as per para 5.24 of I.A. No.2524 of 2020, the Appellant was not a creditor
of the Corporate Debtor. Proceedings for preferential transaction could have
been proceeded only against the creditors and the Appellant being not a
creditor of the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have
been deleted the name of the Appellant from I.A. No.2524 of 2020. Learned
counsel for the Respondent submits that there are other Respondents to the
I.A. against whom the application has to be proceeded with and decided.
4. We make it clear that we are only concerned in present case with regard
to Appellant's name, who is party respondent in I.A. No.2524 of 2020. In view
of the submissions of counsel for the parties, as noticed above, we are of the
view that I.A. No.3126 of 2023 deserve to be allowed and name of the Appellant
be deleted from I.A. No.2524 of 2020. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.379 of 2024
Connected matters
Decided by the same order
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