2017 (7) TMI 1069 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Corporate insolvency procedure - Held that - There is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant reached any agreement with the respondent/ corporate debtor for purchase of a plot in Ozone City Aligarh. A receipt has been enclosed which shows that an amount of Rs. 30 Iacs was deposited in advance in cash on 22nd February 2013 for booking of plot in Ozone City Aligarh and in case of non-confirmation of booking within one year the amount is required to be refunded without interest. Admittedly the appellant has not made any claim in respect of goods. The appellant has also not rendered any services for which he is entitled to claim any amount. It is not the case of the appellant that he was in employment or a debt in respect of repayrnent of dues arising under any law is due to him. As the dues to which the appellant claim does not arise under any law for the time being in force and merely based on the receipt we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of rejection of application under section 9 in absence of any merit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's appeal against rejection of application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Determination of appellant's status as an 'Operational Creditor' as per the I&B Code 2016 definitions.
3. Analysis of the appellant's claim in relation to operational debt under the I&B Code 2016.

Issue 1:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The rejection was based on the finding that the appellant did not qualify as an 'Operational Creditor' as defined under sub-sections (20) and (21) of Section 5 of the I&B Code 2016.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that they deposited a sum with the respondent/corporate debtor for booking a plot, and due to non-confirmation within a year, the amount should be refunded. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no agreement for the purchase of the plot, and the appellant's claim did not fall under the definition of an 'Operational Creditor' as per the I&B Code 2016.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal referred to the definitions in the I&B Code 2016, where an 'Operational Creditor' is defined as a person to whom an operational debt is owed. An 'Operational Debt' includes claims related to goods or services, employment, or debts arising under any applicable law. The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim did not meet these criteria, as there was no claim for goods, services, employment, or dues under any existing law. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no merit in interfering with the rejection of the application under section 9 of the I&B Code 2016.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the application, emphasizing that the appellant's claim did not align with the definitions of an 'Operational Creditor' or 'Operational Debt' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.