TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the application was maintainable within the Tribunal's pecuniary jurisdiction; (ii) whether the WhatsApp conversation could be admitted in evidence; (iii) whether the petitioner was a financial creditor and the amount received by the corporate debtor constituted a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Issue (i): Whether the application was maintainable within the Tribunal's pecuniary jurisdiction.
Analysis: The application was filed after the notification enhancing the minimum threshold from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1 crore. The petitioner failed to produce evidence that the petition had been originally filed before another bench prior to the notification and later returned. In the absence of such proof, the claim amount remained below the Tribunal's pecuniary jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The application was not maintainable on pecuniary jurisdiction and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the WhatsApp conversation could be admitted in evidence.
Analysis: The alleged WhatsApp messages were relied upon as acknowledgment of debt, but no certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was produced. Oral proof could not substitute the mandatory certificate for electronic records. Further, there was no reliable proof that the person sending the messages was authorised to bind the corporate debtor.
Conclusion: The WhatsApp conversation was held inadmissible and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner was a financial creditor and the amount received by the corporate debtor constituted a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: Financial debt requires disbursal against consideration for the time value of money. The record did not show that the amount paid towards share application money was advanced on that basis. There was no material to establish that the transaction had the character of borrowing or that the petitioner fell within the statutory definition of financial creditor.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not a financial creditor and the amount did not constitute financial debt; this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed on maintainability, evidentiary admissibility, and the absence of a financial debt, and was therefore dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Electronic records require compliance with the mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4), and a financial debt exists only where the amount is disbursed against consideration for the time value of money.
TaxTMI 
