Operational creditor status failed where money was advanced for coal supply, making the Section 9 insolvency application non-maintainable.

A respondent who merely advanced money for supply of coal, without itself supplying goods or rendering services, did not satisfy the requirements of an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The work order also indicated that if the arrangement was in substance a joint venture investment, the claim would fall within a financial creditor's claim rather than an operational debt. On either analysis, the statutory ingredients for operational creditor status were absent, so the Section 9 application was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent qualified as an operational creditor so as to maintain an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The work order showed that the respondent had advanced money to the corporate debtor for supply of coal and had not itself supplied goods or rendered services. On the appellant's case, if the arrangement was a joint venture investment, the respondent's claim would lie in the nature of a financial creditor's claim and not an operational debt. In either view, the ingredients of operational creditor status were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The respondent was not an operational creditor and the Section 9 application was not maintainable.

---