# In the matter of Vadraj Cement Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 2025-03-18. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLT-00352. The case involves an application (IA 5996/2024) filed by ASL Sales and Services LLP against the…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 18 Mar 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLT-00352
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/vadraj-cement-limited-4cda0c36

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application (IA 5996/2024) filed by ASL Sales and Services LLP against the Resolution Professional (RP) of Vadraj Cement Limited, the Corporate Debtor, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules. The applicant sought to quash the rejection of its secured financial claim by the RP and to direct the RP to admit the claim. The applicant, engaged in logistics and marketing services, claimed to be both a financial and operational creditor based on an agreement with the Corporate Debtor, a cement manufacturer. The dispute centers on whether a security deposit and a refundable security deposit made by the applicant to the corporate debtor should be classified as financial or operational debt.

## Facts

ASL Sales and Services LLP (Applicant) entered into an agreement with Vadraj Cement Limited (Corporate Debtor) where ASL Sales would act as a marketing organizer for Vadraj Cement. As part of the agreement, ASL Sales deposited Rs. 20,00,000 as a security deposit and Rs. 4,80,00,000 as a refundable security deposit. The security deposit was intended for the due performance of the agreement, while the refundable security deposit was to be refunded in monthly installments. Vadraj Cement was admitted into CIRP on February 2, 2024. The Applicant filed a claim in Form C for Rs. 9,98,65,318, including the refundable deposit and interest, as a secured financial debt. The Resolution Professional (RP) rejected the claim, classifying it as an operational debt under Section 5(21)

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the claim of the Applicant in relation to Security Deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- and …

**Ratio:** Section 5(21) of the IBC defines operational debt as a claim in respect of the provision

…

**Reasoning:** The tribunal reasoned that the security deposit was for the due performance of the

…

**Interpretation:** The security deposit is interpreted as a guarantee for service performance,

…

**Application:** The security deposit is classified as an operational debt because it secures

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Prabhat…; V.G. B…
- **Appellants:** ASL Sales and…
- **Respondents:** Vadraj Cement…

## Timeline

- **2017-01-02 — Agreement…**: Agreement executed between ASL…
- **2017-01-16 — Agreement Effec…**: Agreement became…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/vadraj-cement-limited-4cda0c36