Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S. Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Uic Udyog Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal26 July 2018

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal expresses no opinion on whether the appellant, who retained and used money advanced for supply and claimed interest at 24% per month, could be a financial creditor under Section 5(7) read with Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, because that question was not raised by an application under Section 7; such a claim must be made under Section 7 before the Adjudicating Authority, which is to decide it independently of the impugned order.

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. 394 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s. UIC Udyog Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Rohit Choudhary and Ms. Ankit Patnaik, Advocates.

ORDER

26.07.2018─ The Appellant- 'M/s. Daya Engineering Works Pvt.

Ltd.' invested money with 'M/s. UIC Udyog Ltd.' for supplying of

materials. The materials valued Rs. 4,02,33,473/- (Rupees Four Crore

Two Lakh Thirty-Three Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-Three Only)

were supplied but material of the balance amount Rs. 12,09,443/-

(Rupees Twelve Lakh Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Three Only)

was not supplied.

2. According to the Appellant, the Respondent is liable to pay back

the balance amount of Rs. 12,09,443/- with @ 24% interest.

3. With the aforesaid claim, the Appellant filed an application under

Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter

referred to as "I&B Code'). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company

Contd/-............

-2-

Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, by impugned order dated 16th

May, 2018 rightly held that the Appellant do not come within the meaning

of the 'Operational Creditor' and rejected the application.

4. During the submission, learned counsel for the Appellant

submitted that the Respondent- 'Corporate Debtor' has retained the

amount for its commercial purpose and used the same and, therefore,

the Appellant has claimed interest at the rate of 24% per month.

Submission is made that the Appellant in such case should be treated to

be a 'Financial Creditor' within the meaning of Section 5(7) read with (8)

of the 'I&B Code'. However, we are not expressing any opinion with regard

to such issue as to whether Appellant is 'Financial Creditor' or not, as the

claim was not filed under Section 7 of the 'I&B Code'. If the Appellant

feels that it was the case under Section 7 and wrongly filed application

under Section 9 it may move in accordance with law before the

Adjudicating Authority who may decide such claim independently

uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 16th May, 2018.

5. The Appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. No cost.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 394 of 2018

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