2022 (8) TMI 327 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Debt as 'Financial Debt' under Insolvency Code: Apex Court's Decision Affirmed

Vikas Dahiya (Ex-Director of Golden Tobacco Limited) Versus Arrow Engineering Limited, Golden Tobacco Limited And Oval Investment Pvt. Ltd. Versus Arrow Engineering Ltd., Golden Tobacco Limited

Vikas Dahiya (Ex-Director of Golden Tobacco Limited) Versus Arrow Engineering Limited, Golden Tobacco Limited And Oval Investment Pvt. Ltd. Versus Arrow ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the Corporate Debtor owed a financial debt to the Appellant.2. Whether the balance sheets contained acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.3. Whether the application filed under Section 7 of IBC by the Appellant was barred by time.4. Competency of the Appellants to challenge the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.5. Legality or irregularity in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Corporate Debtor owed a financial debt to the Appellant:The Tribunal examined whether the debt owed by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor qualified as a 'financial debt' under Sections 3(11) and 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Tribunal concluded that the debt due to the Financial Creditor was indeed a financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of IBC. This finding was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, thereby attaining finality.2. Whether the balance sheets contained acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963:The Tribunal addressed whether the balance sheets for the years 2014-15 to 2018-19 contained an acknowledgment of debt as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was concluded that the balance sheets did acknowledge the debt, thereby extending the limitation period. This finding was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.3. Whether the application filed under Section 7 of IBC by the Appellant was barred by time:The Tribunal examined the issue of limitation and concluded that the application under Section 7 of IBC was filed within the limitation period. This finding was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.4. Competency of the Appellants to challenge the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority:The Tribunal considered whether the Appellants, who had not challenged the earlier findings of the Tribunal, could raise the same issues again. It was held that the principle of res judicata applied, and the Appellants could not re-agitate issues that had already been decided and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Tribunal emphasized that allowing such challenges would amount to an abuse of the process of law.5. Legality or irregularity in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority:The Tribunal found no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which had complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had correctly commenced the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) as directed.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, holding that the findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation had attained finality and could not be re-agitated. The principle of res judicata was applied to prevent abuse of the process of law and ensure finality in litigation. The Tribunal found no merit in the contentions of the Appellants and upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority.