Petition to Recover Deposited Amount Dismissed for Not Meeting Financial Debt Criteria.

The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the claim did not qualify as a financial debt. The petitioner was advised to seek remedy under Chapter V of the Companies Act, 2013, for the recovery of the deposited amount.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner's claim qualifies as a "Financial Debt" under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Whether the deduction of TDS by the Corporate Debtor constitutes an admission of liability.
3. The applicability of Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the petitioner's claim qualifies as a "Financial Debt" under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016:

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor due to its inability to liquidate financial debt amounting to INR 21,94,771/-. The petitioner claimed that the amount deposited with the Corporate Debtor, along with accrued interest, qualifies as a financial debt. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioner used the term "deposit" rather than "debt" in the application. The Tribunal referred to the definitions of "Financial Debt," "Financial Creditor," "Debt," and "Claim" as per Sections 5(7), 5(8), 3(6), and 3(11) of the Code. It concluded that the petitioner's claim does not fall within the purview of Section 5(8) of the Code, as the amount deposited does not meet the criteria for being considered a financial debt.

2. Whether the deduction of TDS by the Corporate Debtor constitutes an admission of liability:

The petitioner argued that the deduction of TDS on the interest paid to him by the Corporate Debtor indicates an acknowledgment of liability. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Utility Powertech Limited Vs. Amit Traders, where it was held that the deduction of TDS does not constitute an admission of liability. TDS can be deducted based on the estimation of income, and its deduction alone is not sufficient to impose liability. The Tribunal agreed with this view, stating that while TDS deduction reflects the payment of interest, it does not, by itself, transform the deposited amount into a financial debt under the Code.

3. The applicability of Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):

The Tribunal examined whether the petitioner's application under Section 7 of the Code is maintainable. It referred to the definition of "default" under Section 3(12) of the Code, which means non-payment of debt when it becomes due and payable. Since the Tribunal had already determined that the petitioner's claim does not qualify as a financial debt, it concluded that there is no default in payment of debt as defined under the Code. Consequently, the petitioner's application under Section 7 for initiating CIRP was deemed not maintainable.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, stating that the claim does not qualify as a financial debt under the Code. The petitioner was advised to seek remedy under Chapter V of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the Company (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014, for the recovery of the deposited amount.

---