Appeal Dismissed: Lack of Privity, Financial Debt Failure

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Applicant Bank under Section 42 of IBC, 2016, due to lack of privity of contract, failure to establish the claim as a financial debt, the claim being barred by limitation, and the delay in filing the appeal without seeking condonation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of claim by the Liquidator.
2. Privity of contract between the parties.
3. Financial debt and creditor status under IBC, 2016.
4. Limitation period for filing an appeal.
5. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Claim by the Liquidator:
The Applicant Bank filed a claim for Rs. 124,02,44,265/- with the Liquidator of M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited (NOCL) under Regulation 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The Liquidator rejected this claim on the grounds that it was not tenable under law. The Applicant Bank argued that their claim arose from a term loan extended to M/s. Coastal Oil & Gas Infrastructure Private Limited (COGIL), a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) promoted by NOCL and M/s. Abir Infrastructure Private Limited.

2. Privity of Contract Between the Parties:
The Liquidator contended that NOCL was not a party to the contracts through which the credit facility was extended to COGIL by the Applicant Bank. Therefore, there was no privity of contract between the Applicant and NOCL regarding the claims. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant Bank's claim was based on transactions involving COGIL, and since COGIL had not appealed the Liquidator's rejection, the Applicant Bank could not claim against NOCL without evidence of NOCL acting as a guarantor or surety for COGIL's debts.

3. Financial Debt and Creditor Status Under IBC, 2016:
The Applicant Bank argued that their claim should be considered a "financial debt" under IBC, 2016, and they should be treated as a "financial creditor." The Liquidator countered that the claim did not satisfy the requirements of Section 5(8) of IBC, 2016, and there was no direct contractual obligation between the Applicant and NOCL. The Tribunal agreed with the Liquidator, stating that the absence of a registered charge with the Registrar of Companies (RoC) further invalidated the claim.

4. Limitation Period for Filing an Appeal:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the limitation period, citing the Hon'ble NCLAT's decision in C.R. Badrinath -Vs- Eight Capital India (M) Limited & Anr., which held that the issue of limitation could be raised at any stage. The Tribunal found that the Applicant Bank's claim was barred by limitation, as there was no evidence of a demand for repayment from NOCL or COGIL within the prescribed period.

5. Delay in Filing the Appeal and Condonation of Delay:
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant Bank filed the appeal 17 days late and did not submit an application for condonation of delay. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Gaurar Hargovindbhai Dave -Vs- Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. & Another, the Tribunal reiterated that "there is no equity about limitation" and dismissed the appeal due to the delay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Applicant Bank under Section 42 of IBC, 2016, on multiple grounds, including lack of privity of contract, failure to establish the claim as a financial debt, the claim being barred by limitation, and the delay in filing the appeal without seeking condonation.

---