• Tue. Nov 5th, 2024

Judgement on providing clarity in definition of Financial Debt as per the provision of the Code

Byadmin

Mar 28, 2022 #Case Law
SubjectInsolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Case NameM/s. Orator Marketing Private Limited Vs. M/s. Samtex Desinz Private Limited
Corporate DebtorM/s Samtex Desinz Private Limited
M/s Samtex Desinz Private LimitedM/s Samtex Desinz Private Limited
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2231 of 2021
Judgment Date26-07-2021

Summary of the case :

The definition of Financial Debt in Section 5(8) of IBC does not expressly exclude an interest free loan. Financial Debt would have to be construed to include interest free loans advanced to finance the business operations of a corporate body.

  1. Facts of the case :
    1. 1. M/s Sameer Sales Private Limited (Original Lender) advanced a term loan of Rs.1.60 crores to the Corporate Debtor for a period of two years, to enable the Corporate Debtor to meet its working capital requirement. The Original Lender has assigned the outstanding loan to M/s. Orator Marketing Private Limited (Appellant).
    2. 2. According to the Appellant the loan was due to be repaid by the Corporate Debtor in full within 01.02.2020. The Appellant claims that the Corporate Debtor made some payments, but Rs.1.56 crores still remain outstanding.
    3. 3. According to the Appellant the loan was due to be repaid by the Corporate Debtor in full within 01.02.2020. The Appellant claims that the Corporate Debtor made some payments, but Rs.1.56 crores still remain outstanding.
    4. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC, 2016. The appeal has been dismissed by the NCLAT. Against this judgement, this appeal under Section 62 of the IBC, 2016 is filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court.
    5. 5. Question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court “Whether a person who gives a term loan to a Corporate Person, free of interest, on account of its working capital requirements is not a Financial Creditor, and therefore, incompetent to initiate the CIRP under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016”

Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as follows:

  1. 1. Construction/Interpretation of Statutory Provision :
    • In construing or interpreting any statutory provision, one must look into the legislative intent of the statute. The intention of the statute has to be found in the words used by the legislature itself. In case of doubt, it is always safe to look into the object and purpose of the statute or the reason and spirit behind it. Each word, phrase or sentence has to be construed in the light of the general purpose of the Act itself, as observed by Mukherjea, J. in Poppatlal Shah Vs. State of Madras, and a plethora of other judgments of this Court. To quote Krishna Iyer, J, the interpretative effort “must be illumined by the goal, though guided by the words”.
    1. When a question arises as to the meaning of a certain provision in a statute, the provision has to be read in its context. The statute has to be read as a whole. The previous state of the law, the general scope and ambit of the statute and the mischief that it was intended to remedy are relevant factors.
    2. In Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha Vs. Manhabala Jeram Damodar (2013), this Court interpreting Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as amended by the Maharashtra Act XIX of 1976, observed that ‘the golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning when the language or phraseology employed by the legislature is precise and plain ‘.
  1. 2. Definition of Financial Creditor under IBC :
    1. Under Section 6 of the IBC, 2016 a right accrues to a Financial Creditor, an Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor itself to initiate the CIRP in respect of such Corporate Debtor, in the manner provided in Chapter II of the IBC, 2016.
    2. In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Union of India, this Court held that to several earlier judgments including Innoventive Industries Ltd. and Swiss Ribbons Private Limited held that even individuals who were debenture holders and fixed deposit holders could also be financial creditors who could initiate the CIRP.
    3. The definition of ‘Financial Debt’ in Section 5(8) of the IBC cannot be read in isolation, without considering some other relevant definitions, particularly, the definition of ‘claim’ in Section 3(6), ‘corporate debtor’ in Section 3(8), ‘creditor’ in Section 3(10), ‘debt’ in section 3(11), ‘default’ in Section 3(12), ‘financial creditor’ in Section 5(7) as also the provisions, inter alia, of Sections 6 and 7 of the IBC, 2016.
    4. The eligibility of a person, to initiate the CIRP, if questioned, has to be adjudicated upon consideration of the key words and expressions in the Section 7 and other related provisions.
    5. Section 5(8) defines ‘financial debt’ to mean “a debt along with interest if any which is disbursed against the consideration of the time value of money and includes money borrowed against the payment of interest, as per Section 5(8) (a) of the IBC. The definition of ‘financial debt’ in Section 5(8) includes the components of sub-clauses (a) to (i) of the said Section. ‘Financial debt’ means outstanding principal due in respect of a loan and would also include interest thereon, if any interest were payable thereon. If there is no interest payable on the loan, only the outstanding principal would qualify as a financial debt.
    6. Furthermore, sub-clauses (a) to (i) of Sub-section 8 of Section 5 of the IBC are apparently illustrative and not exhaustive. Legislature has the power to define a word in a statute. Such definition may either be restrictive or be extensive. Where the word is defined to include something, the definition is prima facie extensive.
  1. 3. Advance to Corporate Debtor without Interest
    1. The debts in question were in the form of third-party security, given by the Corporate Debtor to secure loans and advances obtained a third party from the Respondent Lender and, therefore, held not to be a financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the IBC.
    2. There was no occasion for this Court to consider the status of a term loan advanced to meet the working capital requirements of the Corporate Debtor, which did not carry interest. Having regard to the Aims, Objects and Scheme of the IBC, there is no discernible reason, why a term loan to meet the financial requirements of a Corporate Debtor for its operation, which obviously has the commercial effect of borrowing, should be excluded from the purview of a financial debt.
    3. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the trigger for initiation of the CIRP by a Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the IBC is the occurrence of a default by the Corporate Debtor. ‘Default’ means non-payment of debt in whole or part when the debt has become due and payable and debt means a liability or obligation in respect of a claim which is due from any person and includes financial debt and operational debt. The definition of ‘debt’ is also expansive and the same includes inter alia financial debt.
    4. The definition of ‘Financial Debt’ in Section 5(8) of IBC does not expressly exclude an interest free loan. ‘Financial Debt’ would have to be construed to include interest free loans advanced to finance the business operations of a corporate body.
  1. Judgement on the present case :
  1. The judgment and order of the NCLAT, affirming the judgment and order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) and dismissing the appeal is patently flawed. Both the NCLAT and NCLT have misconstrued the definition of ‘financial debt’ in Section 5(8) of the IBC, by reading the same in isolation and out of context.

The NCLT and NCLAT have overlooked the words “if any” which could not have been intended to be otiose. ‘Financial debt’ means outstanding principal due in respect of a loan and would also include interest thereon, if any interest were payable thereon. If there is no interest payable on the loan, only the outstanding principal would qualify as a financial debt. Both NCLAT and NCLT have failed to notice clause(f) of Section 5(8), in terms whereof ‘financial debt’ includes any amount raised under any other transaction, having the commercial effect of borrowing.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order impugned is, accordingly, set aside. The order of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the petition of the Appellant under Section 7 of the IBC is also set aside. The petition under Section 7 stands revived and may be decided afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the findings above.

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *