Tribunal rules against 'M/s. ISMT Limited' in Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code case

The respondent, 'M/s. ISMT Limited,' filed a Section 9 application under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, alleging a debt default. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application, but the appellant contended that the respondent did not qualify as an 'Operational Creditor.' The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the respondent did not meet the criteria as an 'Operational Creditor' and could not claim 'financial creditor' status. Consequently, the Section 9 application was dismissed, all related orders were declared illegal, and the respondent was freed from legal constraints, marking the end of the case.

---

---

Issues: Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Whether respondent qualifies as an 'Operational Creditor' - Whether respondent can claim as a 'financial creditor' - Legality of orders passed by Adjudicating Authority - Dismissal of the application under Section 9 of the I&B Code.

Analysis:
1. The respondent, 'M/s. ISMT Limited,' filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, alleging a debt default of Rs. 2,10,00,000. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application based on the default and the notice issued under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code.

2. The appellant argued that 'M/s. ISMT Limited' does not meet the criteria of an 'Operational Creditor' as no goods or services were supplied. However, the respondent claimed to have paid an advance against a work order for the supply of Indonesian Thermal Coal to the 'corporate debtor.'

3. The work order dated 7th January, 2012, detailed the supply of coal by the 'corporate debtor' to the respondent's power plant. The dispute centered on whether this transaction qualified the respondent as an 'Operational Creditor' under the I&B Code.

4. The definition of 'Operational Creditor' under Section 5(20) was crucial in determining the respondent's status. The advance payment made by the respondent for coal supply did not align with the typical operational creditor activities of supplying goods or services, leading to the conclusion that the respondent did not fall under this category.

5. The respondent's argument of a joint venture investment was considered, suggesting a 'financial creditor' status instead of an 'operational creditor.' The tribunal ruled that the respondent did not qualify as an 'operational creditor,' rendering the Section 9 application invalid.

6. The impugned order admitting the application was set aside, allowing the respondent to pursue appropriate action as a 'financial creditor' if the 'corporate debtor' defaulted on the settlement offer. All orders related to the insolvency proceedings were declared illegal, and the respondent was released from the legal constraints to operate independently.

7. The Adjudicating Authority was tasked with determining the fees of the Interim Resolution Professional, to be paid by the 'corporate debtor' for the period of service. The appeal was disposed of without costs, marking the conclusion of the case with the dismissal of the Section 9 application and the restoration of the respondent's independent operational status.

---