Foreign decree challenge and operational debt test under insolvency law limit jurisdiction and bar Section 9 claims not tied to goods or services.

In insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Adjudicating Authority cannot examine the legality, enforceability, or propriety of a foreign judgment or decree, as that question lies beyond its jurisdiction. The document also states that a money claim based on a foreign decree and related commercial arrangements does not become an operational debt unless it arises from the supply of goods or services. On that basis, the claimants were not operational creditors and a Section 9 application was not maintainable. The stated result is that the jurisdictional objection succeeded, but the maintainability challenge on operational debt was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction, in proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to decide the legality and propriety of a foreign judgment and decree. (ii) Whether the claim arising from the foreign decree and related agreements constituted an operational debt so as to make the applicants operational creditors and the application under Section 9 maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction, in proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to decide the legality and propriety of a foreign judgment and decree.

Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority is not a court or tribunal for adjudicating the validity of a foreign decree in insolvency proceedings. Questions relating to the legality, enforceability, or propriety of a foreign judgment and decree cannot be decided as if insolvency proceedings were ordinary litigation. Any such findings recorded on the validity of the foreign decree were therefore beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The question of legality and propriety of the foreign judgment and decree could not be decided by the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim arising from the foreign decree and related agreements constituted an operational debt so as to make the applicants operational creditors and the application under Section 9 maintainable.

Analysis: The money claim did not arise from the supply of goods or services. On the record, the underlying arrangements were commercial in nature, but the asserted dues were founded on a claim for money judgment and damages rather than an operational liability. Since the debt was not one falling within the statutory definition of operational debt, the applicants could not be treated as operational creditors for invoking the corporate insolvency process under Section 9.

Conclusion: The claim was not an operational debt and the applicants were not operational creditors; the Section 9 application was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the jurisdictional question, but failed on maintainability, and no relief could be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: In insolvency proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority cannot examine the legality of a foreign decree, and a claim not arising from the supply of goods or services does not amount to operational debt for the purpose of Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---