Varsha Jain vs Iseo Chemdis Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 250 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A transaction relied upon as a 'financial debt' under Section 7 of the I&B Code must be shown to rest on an enforceable instrument; a draft agreement not followed by an executed and enforceable agreement or contract does not establish that the amount advanced is a financial debt. Where the agreement itself stipulates a lock-in period that subsists on the date of filing the Section 7 application, the principal amount is not repayable at that time, so no default exists under Section 7 even if the amount is assumed to be a financial debt, because the creditor is not entitled to claim it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Varsha Jain ....Appellant
Vs.
ISEO Chemdis Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
Present: Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kataria and Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocates.
Respondent:
ORDER
05.03.2020: This appeal has been preferred against rejection of Appellant's
application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(in short 'I&B Code') on the ground that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate
that the amount claimed to have been invested by her falls within the ambit of
'Financial Debt'.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that a Draft Agreement dated
18th June, 2018 was signed inter-se the parties in terms whereof Appellant
invested Rs.100 Lakhs in ICPL with Rs.50 Lakhs infused as equity and balance
Rs.50 Lakhs to be treated as loan from a shareholder carrying interest @ 33.33%
per annum. He banks upon this Draft Agreement to demonstrate that the money
was disbursed against consideration of time value of money.
3. However, we find that the Draft Agreement, as taken note of by the learned
Adjudicating Authority, was not followed by executing an enforceable instrument -2-
in form of an Agreement/ Contract. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the
finding recorded by the learned Adjudicating Authority that the Appellant has
failed to demonstrate that the amount claimed to have been invested falls within
the ambit of a 'financial debt'.
4. That apart, we find that even on the basis of stipulation in the Draft
Agreement it was provided that there will be a locking period of 60 months on
such investment. Admittedly, the locking period subsisted on the date of filing
of application under Section 7 of the I&B Code and the position continues to be
so even on date. Viewed from that perspective, even if, the Appellant's claim of
such investment being a 'financial' debt is accepted, there is no "default" as the
Appellant would not be entitled to claim the Principal Amount claimed to have
been infused as loan.
5. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)
[V. P. Singh] Member (Technical) am/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 250 of 2020
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