Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Engenious Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs Onaex Natura Pvt. Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal1 November 2017

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A person who has been allotted equity shares, and whose allotment has since been cancelled, does not thereby become a "financial creditor" within the meaning of Section 5(8) read with Section 5(9) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, merely because the company's records show the amount lying with it as a debt.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 249 of 2017IN THE MATTER OF:

Engenious Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

Onaex Natura Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. V. Seshagiri, Mr. Anchit Tripathi and Mr. Adhish Rajvanshi, Advocates.

For Respondent: - Mr. Jay Savla and Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Advocates.

ORDER

01.11.2017- In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated

20th September, 2017 passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal) Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Company

Petition No. (IB) 92/7/NCLT/AHM/2017 whereby and whereunder the

application preferred by appellant under section 7 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "I&B Code") has been

rejected on the ground that the appellant is not a 'Financial Creditor'.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

and the respondent.

3. From the record we find that the appellant invested some amount

with the respondent company and was allotted equity shares. In a petition

under Sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the then Company

Law Board cancelled the allotment of share capital in favour of the

appellant. On such cancellation, the amount is lying with the respondent -2-

company which has been shown as debt amount of Rs.79,15,480/-.

Though, the aforesaid fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for

the respondent, but without going into the question as to what amount is

lying with the respondent, we do find nothing on the record to suggest that

the appellant come within the meaning of 'Financial Creditor' under

Section 5(8) read with Section 5(9) of the 'I&B Code'. Even if it is accepted

that the amount has been shown to be a debt in the records of the

Company, does not mean that the appellant is a 'Financial Creditor'.

4. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No Cost.

5. However, the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority

will not come in the way of the appellant to move before the appropriate

forum for appropriate relief.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk

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