Tribunal affirms Financial Creditor's Rs.3.5 crore debt as valid under I&B Code, dismissing appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to admit the Section 7 Application, concluding that the Rs.3.5 crore disbursed by the Financial Creditor constituted a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the I&B Code. The Tribunal rejected arguments related to the contingent nature of a separate agreement and the existence of a Deal Fee, finding them meritless. The appeal was dismissed, and the interim order was discharged.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount of Rs.3.5 crore disbursed by the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor is a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) or was it an investment/payment for acquiring 50% equity share in M/s SPT.
2. Whether the liability of the Corporate Debtor to return Rs.3.5 crore could have arisen only upon receipt of USD 0.80 Million from Investor Ajay Kumar Jain, making the Agreement dated 14.07.2018 a contingent contract not enforceable under Section 33 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
3. Whether the amount of Rs.3.5 crore paid by the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor was towards Deal Fee payable to the Appellant as per Agreement dated 04.12.2016.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the amount of Rs.3.5 crore disbursed by the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor is a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the I&B Code or was it an investment/payment for acquiring 50% equity share in M/s SPT.

The core issue is whether the Rs.3.5 crore disbursed by the Financial Creditor qualifies as a financial debt. The Financial Creditor disbursed the amount between 02.12.2016 and 15.12.2016, which was credited to the IDBI account of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor acknowledged the receipt but contested the nature of the transaction, claiming it was for acquiring 50% equity shares in M/s SPT.

The Tribunal examined the Agreement dated 04.12.2016, which outlined equal equity participation for the acquisition of M/s Sona BLW Precision Forge Inc. However, subsequent acknowledgments, including an Agreement dated 21.10.2017 and emails dated 12.03.2018 and 28.05.2018, indicated the Corporate Debtor's commitment to return Rs.3.5 crore, treating it as a short-term loan. The Balance Sheet of 2017-18 also recorded this amount under 'Unsecured Loans.'

Section 5(8) of the I&B Code defines financial debt as a debt disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money, which includes any amount raised under a transaction with the commercial effect of borrowing. The Tribunal concluded that the amount of Rs.3.5 crore qualified as a financial debt, as it was utilized for commercial purposes and acknowledged as a loan by the Corporate Debtor.

Issue 2: Whether the liability of the Corporate Debtor to return Rs.3.5 crore could have arisen only upon receipt of USD 0.80 Million from Investor Ajay Kumar Jain, making the Agreement dated 14.07.2018 a contingent contract not enforceable under Section 33 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The Appellant argued that the Agreement dated 14.07.2018 made the repayment of Rs.3.5 crore contingent upon receiving USD 0.80 Million from Investor Ajay Kumar Jain. Section 33 of the Indian Contract Act states that a contingent contract can only be enforced when the event on which it is contingent happens.

However, the Tribunal noted that the Financial Creditor was not a party to the Agreement dated 14.07.2018, which was between the US Company, the Appellant, and the Investor. The Financial Creditor's claim for Rs.3.5 crore was independent of this agreement. The Tribunal held that any agreement between the Corporate Debtor and third parties could not dilute the debt owed to the Financial Creditor. Therefore, the contingent nature of the Agreement dated 14.07.2018 did not affect the enforceability of the Financial Creditor's claim.

Issue 3: Whether the amount of Rs.3.5 crore paid by the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor was towards Deal Fee payable to the Appellant as per Agreement dated 04.12.2016.

The Appellant claimed that the Rs.3.5 crore was a Deal Fee as mentioned in the Agreement dated 04.12.2016, which included a fee of USD 1 million in the total project cost. However, the Tribunal found no indication in the Agreement that any Deal Fee was to be paid to the Appellant by the Financial Creditor. Furthermore, this argument was raised for the first time in the appeal and was not part of the pleadings before the Adjudicating Authority.

The Tribunal dismissed this argument as hollow and meritless, noting that the detailed Reply filed by the Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority did not mention any Deal Fee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to admit the Section 7 Application, concluding that the Rs.3.5 crore disbursed by the Financial Creditor was a financial debt. The arguments regarding the contingent nature of the Agreement dated 14.07.2018 and the Deal Fee were found to be without merit. The appeal was dismissed, and the interim order was discharged.

---