Operational debt classification under the Insolvency Code remained unchanged despite assignment of bills of exchange.

Bills of exchange issued in connection with supply transactions did not change the character of the underlying claim from operational debt to financial debt. Because the amounts due arose from goods and services supplied to the corporate debtor, the assignee or transferee remained an operational creditor to the extent of the assignment under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Code's definitions of operational debt and operational creditor governed the classification, and external statutory meanings could not displace them. The appellant therefore could not be treated as a financial creditor and was entitled to proceed only as an operational creditor.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, on the basis of discounting and transfer of bills of exchange arising from supply transactions, could be treated as a financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, or only as an operational creditor.

Analysis: The claim originated from goods supplied by the operational creditor to the corporate debtor, and the bills of exchange were connected with that supply transaction. The amounts due were reflected as dues for goods and services, and the transfer or assignment of the operational debt did not alter its character. Under Section 5(20) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, an assignee or transferee of an operational debt remains an operational creditor to the extent of such assignment. Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 defines operational debt in relation to goods or services, and Section 3(37) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 limits reliance on meanings from other statutes where the Code itself provides the governing definition.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a financial creditor and could claim only as an operational creditor.

---