2019 (11) TMI 1489 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditor - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The State Bank of India, being the Applicant herein, has approached this Tribunal as an Operational Creditor claiming that the Operational Debt is due from the Respondent and that the default has been committed with respect to the same - It is seen that for a debt to fall within the confines of definition of Operational Debt , it must be in relation to a claim arising in respect of (i) provision of goods or (ii) rendition of services or (iii) in relation to employment or iv) in respect of payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, State Government or any local authority. Unless the Applicant claiming to be an Operational Creditor, is able to bring the transactions within the one of the above four categories, even though the Applicant might have a valid claim against the Respondent, however, cannot bring it within the fold of an Operational Debt and thereby an Operational Creditor It is evident from the transactions that as between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, there has been no supply of goods or rendition of any services by the Applicant to the Respondent. Further, the claim is not made by the Applicant/State Bank of India in relation to an employee/employer relationship. The Operational Creditor cannot be considered as the Central Government, the State Government or the local authority to which any amount is due under any law for the time being in force. Thus, the essential ingredients which are required to come before this Tribunal by the Applicant claiming to be an Operational Creditor and an Operational Debt , are essentially lacking. In the circumstance, on this ground alone, this Application deserves to be dismissed in limine. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Application by State Bank of India claiming to be an "Operational Creditor" of M/s. SICAL Logistics Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
- Challenge to the maintainability of the application by the Respondent.
- Dispute regarding the debt claimed and its classification as "Operational Debt."
- Arguments on limitation period and pre-existing disputes.
- Final decision on the application and dismissal of the case.

Analysis:
1. The State Bank of India filed an application claiming to be an "Operational Creditor" of M/s. SICAL Logistics Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, citing a default of ?4,70,25,000 as "Operational Debt."

2. The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the application, arguing that the State Bank of India did not qualify as an "Operational Creditor" and that the debt claimed did not meet the criteria of "Operational Debt" as defined in the I&B Code, 2016.

3. The Respondent contended that there was a pre-existing dispute and raised issues of limitation under Section 238A of the I&B Code, 2016, and the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the debt claimed to be due since 10.04.2008.

4. The Tribunal considered the definitions of "Operational Creditor" and "Operational Debt" under the I&B Code, 2016, and concluded that the claim did not fall within the scope of an "Operational Debt" as it did not relate to goods, services, employment, or dues to the government.

5. Since the application lacked essential elements required for an "Operational Debt," the Tribunal dismissed the case without delving into other contentions raised by the Respondent, emphasizing that the dismissal did not prejudice the State Bank of India's right to pursue its claim through other avenues.