Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Fortune Gilts Private Limited vs Piramal Capital & Housing Finance ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal28 March 2024Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A party that is not a creditor of the corporate debtor cannot be a proper respondent to an application seeking avoidance of a preferential transaction under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, since such proceedings lie only against creditors; the Adjudicating Authority is therefore bound to delete such a non-creditor's name from the application.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHII.A. No. 2114 of 2024 inCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 414 of 2024IN THE MATTER OF:

Fortune Gilts 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.3120 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.3120 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.414 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