Skip to main content

Defaults under “Settlement Agreement” are Operational debts under IBC

In various rulings of NCLT and NCLAT, while deciding Section 9 Petition under IBC, a view is taken that “Settlement Agreement” do not constitute “Operational debt” within the meaning of Section 5(21) of IBC. (The latest ruling appears to be of Trifigura India Pvt Ltd versus TDT Copper Ltd. NCLAT Order / Judgment dated 15.9.2022, passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 742 of 2020)

With greatest respect to the Learned Members at the Bench, all such rulings are ex-facie erroneous.

1.       Section 5(21) of IBC says Operational Debt "means a “Claim” and then sets out the class of debts that are considered as “Operational debts”. What is covered are (1) claims in respect of the provision of goods or services (2) claims in respect of Employment and (3)  A debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority.

2.       Now the Claim is defined u/s 3(6) of IBC.

“Claim” means

(a)     a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured;

(b)     right to remedy for breach of contract under any law for the time being in force, if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured or unsecured;

3.       The breach of Settlement Agreement / or to say, remedy for breach of contract (read settlement Agreement), would inevitably gives rise to right to payment; and in default would trigger the cause of action, to prefer, among other avenues, Insolvency Resolution Application u/s 9 of IBC.

4.       It may be appreciated that Settlement Agreement by itself are not class of “debts”, but are only instrument / vehicle to settle claims or debt.

5.       The identity of debts / claims under the Settlement Agreement can be traced to original transaction in respect of provision of goods or services, or employment, or statutory dues, as the case may be.

6.       The NCLT / NCLAT Rulings on this aspect is “Sub-Silento / “Per Inqurium”, as the they have not considered the import and scope of “Claim" defined under section 3(6) of IBC and have in fact made a very literal interpretation of Section 5(21).

7.       Without prejudice, it may further be appreciated that, such an interpretation also frustrates the legislative intent, wherein the dishonest Corporate Debtors would deceptively overcome the rigors of IBC by entering into a Settlement Agreement, followed by planned default and then contending that the Settlement Agreement are not covered under “Operational Debt”.

8.       The Claims founded on a Settlement Agreement is in consonance with legislative mandate [5(21) r/w 3(6)] and very much constitutes “Operational Debt” within the meaning of Section 5(21) of IBC.

 

 

Sandeep Jalan

Adv.

https://www.litigationplatform.com/

 

 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Leading Evidence during trial

1.       In case where the accused refused to plead guilty of the offence to which he is charged with, and claims to be tried, the Court calls upon the Prosecution / Complainant to lead all the evidences he has in support of his case. 2.       In criminal trial, the evidence are required to be led by the complainant and / or their witnesses by stepping into the witness box and illustrating / demonstrating to what they have witnessed. The Complainant is to examine before the Court, himself, and all other witnesses, who are “witness” to the crime, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused named in the complaint. This examination of himself and other prosecution witnesses is called “Examination – in – Chief. 3.       Giving evidence of facts is critical to any trial, be it civil trial or criminal trial. And therefore, it becomes imperative to understand the dynamics of evidence in legal sens...
1 comment
Read more

The Recall Jurisdiction of the Courts

What is Recall of Orders of the Court ? But first….what is expected from the Orders of the Court – a)       While giving due consideration to the submissions and evidences on record of the rival parties, to record a reasoned finding with respect to disputed question of fact or of law; b)       Employing cogent reasons about the conclusion reached in the order / judgment. c)       Passing of orders in accordance with law. d)      Principles of natural justice are reasonably observed in the judicial proceeding. And when the Orders suffers from any of the vices, it is challenged by way of Review, Appeal or in Revision, alleging the impugned Order, being infected with either of the grounds, i.e. – a)       That there is Error apparent on the face of the Record; b)       That there is Perversity in the impugned Order; c)...
8 comments
Read more

Form II under Rule 6 of Rules, 2006, framed under the impugned Act

Impugned Provision / other anomaly Breach of Section / Article FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the impugned Act Section 3 – Explanation II; Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the impugned Act. Principles of natural justice. FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)     To The Court of Magistrate .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... Application under section ........................ of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)            SHOWETH: That the application under section.................of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is b...
Post a Comment
Read more