9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 13 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyRemoval of appellant from Committee of Creditors - Financial Creditors or not - HELD THAT - The judgement of this Tribunal in Namdeo Ramchandra Patil Ors. 2022 (9) TMI 906 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI fully covers the issues and Adjudicating Authority has rightly referred to the Judgement holding that Appellant is not a financial creditor - The terms and conditions of development agreement entered between the appellant and the corporate debtor, Annexure 6 makes it clear that the appellant was a collaborator in the development agreement and not a financial creditor. There was no disbursement for time value of money by the appellant within meaning of Section 5(8) of the IBC. There are no error in the order impugned. The Appeal is dismissed.
Issues:
Appeal against removal from Committee of Creditors based on being a financial creditor. Analysis: The appellant, a landowner, filed a claim before the Resolution Professional and was inducted into the Committee of Creditors. However, an application by Home-Buyers led to the appellant's removal from the Committee. The appellant argued that as per the Development Agreement, he was entitled to a share of the construction. The Adjudicating Authority held that the appellant was not a financial creditor since no amount was disbursed for the time value of money, as required by Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority referred to the judgment in "Namdeo Ramchandra Patil and Ors. Vs. Vishal Ghisulal Jain" and emphasized the need for disbursement against the consideration for time value of money to qualify as a financial debt. The Authority also cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of "disbursement" in the context of financial debt. The Tribunal concurred with the Authority's decision, stating that the appellant was a collaborator in the development agreement, not a financial creditor, as there was no disbursement for time value of money by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the issues were adequately addressed in the Namdeo Ramchandra Patil case and upheld the Authority's decision that the appellant was not a financial creditor. The terms of the development agreement indicated the appellant's role as a collaborator, not a financial creditor. Since no disbursement for time value of money occurred, the appellant did not meet the criteria under Section 5(8) of the IBC. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
|
