Financial service provider exclusion is limited to covered claims; unrelated operational debt can still trigger insolvency proceedings.

The financial service provider exclusion under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not a blanket immunity; it applies only where the claim arises from the covered financial service. An insurance company facing claims for lease and licence dues and service tax could not rely on the fact that insurance is a financial service, because the debt in question did not arise from an insurance contract. With a valid Section 8 demand notice issued and the debt remaining unpaid, the petition was maintainable, moratorium under Section 14 followed, and corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated with appointment of an interim resolution professional.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an insurance company, when sued for lease and licence dues and service tax dues, could claim exclusion from insolvency proceedings on the footing that it is a financial service provider; (ii) whether the operational creditor's petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was fit for admission and initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process.

Issue (i): Whether an insurance company, when sued for lease and licence dues and service tax dues, could claim exclusion from insolvency proceedings on the footing that it is a financial service provider.

Analysis: The definition of financial service under Section 3(16) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 includes effecting contracts of insurance, but the claim before the Tribunal was not founded on any insurance contract. The claim related to outstanding licence fees and service tax amounts. The statutory exclusion for financial service providers could not, therefore, be invoked as a blanket shield against insolvency proceedings in respect of an unrelated operational debt.

Conclusion: The insurance company could not claim exclusion from insolvency proceedings on the facts of the case, and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the operational creditor's petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was fit for admission and initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: The demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had been issued and the debt remained unpaid. In the absence of a valid exclusionary bar, and with the default remaining unresolved, the Tribunal found the petition maintainable. Upon admission, moratorium under Section 14 followed, and an interim resolution professional was appointed to carry out the statutory functions under Sections 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The petition was admitted and corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated against the corporate debtor.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, the maintainability objection was rejected, and insolvency resolution proceedings were set in motion against the corporate debtor.

Ratio Decidendi: The financial service provider exclusion under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not a blanket immunity and applies only where the claim arises from the covered financial service; an unrelated operational debt remains amenable to insolvency proceedings.

---