The case involves an appeal against an order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, Bench-V in (IB) 1886(ND)/2019. The appellant, Sh. Satish Chand Gupta, filed the appeal being dissatisfied with the NCLT's order. The core issue revolves around whether the amount deposited by the appellant with the respondent, Servel India Private Limited, qualifies as a 'financial debt' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The NCLT had previously held that the amount did not fall under the definition of financial debt, leading to the rejection of the appellant's application under Section 7 of the IBC.
Sh. Satish Chand Gupta (Appellant) deposited an amount with Servel India Private Limited (Respondent/Corporate Debtor). The Appellant claimed that the amounts disbursed to the Respondent were in lieu of gaining interest, which the Respondent consistently credited until 31.03.2018. The Appellant argued that this constituted a 'financial debt' under Section 5(8)(a) and Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC. The Respondent contended that the amount was a 'deposit' and not a 'financial debt'. The Appellant referred to Respondent's ledger accounts, bank statements, and TDS forms to confirm the transactions. The Appellant's son sent emails to the Respondent requesting withdrawal of Rs. 20 lacs, indicating a deposit arrangement. The Respondent acknowledged the debt and its liability for
…Sign in to view the parties.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) passed…
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant had…
The case involves an appeal against an order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, Bench-V in (IB) 1886(ND)/2019. The appellant, Sh. Satish Chand Gupta, filed the appeal being dissatisfied with the NCLT's order. The core issue revolves around whether the amount deposited by the appellant with the respondent, Servel India Private Limited, qualifies as a 'financial debt' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The NCLT had previously held that the amount did not fall under the definition of financial debt, leading to the rejection of the appellant's application under Section 7 of the IBC.
Sh. Satish Chand Gupta (Appellant) deposited an amount with Servel India Private Limited (Respondent/Corporate Debtor). The Appellant claimed that the amounts disbursed to the Respondent were in lieu of gaining interest, which the Respondent consistently credited until 31.03.2018. The Appellant argued that this constituted a 'financial debt' under Section 5(8)(a) and Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC. The Respondent contended that the amount was a 'deposit' and not a 'financial debt'. The Appellant referred to Respondent's ledger accounts, bank statements, and TDS forms to confirm the transactions. The Appellant's son sent emails to the Respondent requesting withdrawal of Rs. 20 lacs, indicating a deposit arrangement. The Respondent acknowledged the debt and its liability for
…The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) passed…
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant had…