Tribunal rejects IBC petition as Applicant not a financial creditor. Jurisdiction issue deemed irrelevant.

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant, having subrogated all rights to HDFC Bank per the Tripartite Agreement, was not a financial creditor. Consequently, the petition under Section 9 of the IBC was rejected. The Tribunal also found that since the Applicant had assigned all rights to HDFC Bank, the issue of jurisdiction to entertain the petition became irrelevant. The Applicant was advised to pursue the refund claim through the appropriate forum as per the supplementary agreement.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the Applicant is a Financial CreditorRs.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the Petition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether Applicant is a Financial Creditor or notRs.
The term "Financial Creditor" is defined in Section 5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Tripartite Agreement to determine the status of the Applicant.
- Clause-8 of the Tripartite Agreement states that in case of cancellation of the residential apartment, the entire amount advanced by HDFC should be refunded by the builder to HDFC immediately.
- Paragraph 9 of the Tripartite Agreement discusses the consequences of default under the Loan Agreement leading to cancellation and the payment obligations.
- Sub-para (2) of clause-9 of the Tripartite Agreement mentions the subrogation of rights to receive any amount payable by the builder to the borrower in favor of HDFC, absolving the builder of its obligation to pay the borrower.
Based on the clauses of the Tripartite Agreement, it was concluded that the Applicant had assigned/subrogated all its rights to HDFC Bank, and therefore, there was no liability for the Corporate Debtor to pay the cancellation amount to the Applicant. Consequently, the Applicant could not be considered a financial creditor, leading to the rejection of the petition under Section 9 of the IBC.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the Petition
The objections raised by the Corporate Debtor included the contention that the Petitioner was not a Financial Creditor as per the IBC, 2016, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition without exhausting the remedy of mutual discussions and arbitration as per the terms of the Agreement. However, the Tribunal's decision on the first issue rendered the discussion on jurisdiction moot.
The Tribunal rejected the petition, stating that since the Applicant had subrogated all its rights in favor of HDFC Bank, they could not be considered a financial creditor. The Applicant was granted liberty to file a claim for the refund of the due amount as per the supplementary agreement before the appropriate forum.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment centered on the interpretation of the Tripartite Agreement to determine the status of the Applicant as a Financial Creditor, leading to the rejection of the petition but allowing the Applicant to seek refund through the appropriate forum.

---