Appellant's Claim Rejected: Not an Operational Creditor under Insolvency Code

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It determined that the appellant did not qualify as an 'Operational Creditor' as defined in the Code, as their claim for a refund of a deposit for a plot did not meet the criteria of an operational debt. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded, as the appellant's claim did not align with the definitions of an 'Operational Creditor' or 'Operational Debt' under the I&B Code 2016.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appellant's appeal against rejection of application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Determination of appellant's status as an 'Operational Creditor' as per the I&B Code 2016 definitions.
3. Analysis of the appellant's claim in relation to operational debt under the I&B Code 2016.

Issue 1:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The rejection was based on the finding that the appellant did not qualify as an 'Operational Creditor' as defined under sub-sections (20) and (21) of Section 5 of the I&B Code 2016.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that they deposited a sum with the respondent/corporate debtor for booking a plot, and due to non-confirmation within a year, the amount should be refunded. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no agreement for the purchase of the plot, and the appellant's claim did not fall under the definition of an 'Operational Creditor' as per the I&B Code 2016.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal referred to the definitions in the I&B Code 2016, where an 'Operational Creditor' is defined as a person to whom an operational debt is owed. An 'Operational Debt' includes claims related to goods or services, employment, or debts arising under any applicable law. The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim did not meet these criteria, as there was no claim for goods, services, employment, or dues under any existing law. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no merit in interfering with the rejection of the application under section 9 of the I&B Code 2016.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the application, emphasizing that the appellant's claim did not align with the definitions of an 'Operational Creditor' or 'Operational Debt' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---