Applicants deemed operational creditors, not financial creditors under IBC. Application under Section 7 dismissed. Liberty to file under Section 9.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants were operational creditors, not financial creditors, as there was no direct disbursal to the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the application under Section 7 of the IBC was deemed not maintainable, leading to its dismissal. However, the applicants were granted the liberty to file a suitable application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
2. Classification of the applicants as financial creditors.
3. Compliance with the threshold requirement under Section 4 of the IBC.
4. Applicability of Section 21(6)(A)(b) of the IBC for class of creditors.
5. Disbursal of the amount and its classification as financial debt.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016:
The application was filed by the applicants under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor for failing to pay Rs. 2,27,40,735.08/-. The applicants argued that they are financial creditors as per the Agreement for Creation of Rights (COR Agreement) and that the Corporate Debtor defaulted on payments due under the invoices.

2. Classification of the applicants as financial creditors:
The applicants contended that they advanced money for invoice discounting transactions benefiting the Seller, who assigned the right to collect money due under invoices to the applicants. However, the respondent argued that the applicants are operational creditors since the primary transaction was for goods and services, and the money was disbursed to the Seller, not the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Cooperative Rabobank, U.A. Singapore Branch v. M/s. Shailender Ajmera and Anuj Jain's case, concluding that the applicants are operational creditors, not financial creditors, as there was no direct disbursal to the Corporate Debtor.

3. Compliance with the threshold requirement under Section 4 of the IBC:
The respondent argued that the individual amounts claimed by each applicant were less than Rs. 1 crore, which is the minimum threshold required under Section 4 of the IBC to initiate the CIRP. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this argument as it dismissed the application on other grounds.

4. Applicability of Section 21(6)(A)(b) of the IBC for class of creditors:
The respondent claimed that the applicants fall under the definition of a class of creditors as per Section 21(6)(A)(b) of the IBC, requiring a joint application by at least 100 creditors or 10% of the total creditors in the same class. The Tribunal did not address this issue in detail due to the dismissal of the application on other grounds.

5. Disbursal of the amount and its classification as financial debt:
The Tribunal emphasized that for a debt to be classified as financial debt under Section 5(8) of the IBC, there must be a disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money. The Tribunal found that the applicants disbursed the amount to the Seller, not the Corporate Debtor, and the applicants were claiming the full invoice amount, not just the discounted amount. Therefore, the applicants could not be considered financial creditors.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the applicants are operational creditors, not financial creditors, as there was no direct disbursal to the Corporate Debtor. Consequently, the application under Section 7 of the IBC was not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the application but allowed the applicants the liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016.

---