Joint venture claims do not create operational creditor status without a real supply of goods or services.

A party to a joint development or joint venture arrangement is not an operational creditor merely because the project structure may involve construction activity or tax treatment associated with services. The decisive question is whether the claim arises from a real supply of goods or services by one party to the other; here, the claim stemmed from the common project itself, not from an independent operational debt. The Section 9 insolvency application was therefore not maintainable, and the insolvency rejection was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could be treated as an operational creditor so as to maintain an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The appellant and the corporate debtor had executed a joint development agreement for a common construction project. The arrangement placed both parties in a joint venture relationship, and the claim arose from that project structure rather than from any independent supply of goods or rendition of services by the appellant to the corporate debtor. A joint venture participant cannot be treated as rendering operational services to the other participant merely because the project may involve services to third parties or attract tax treatment in that context.

Conclusion: The appellant was not an operational creditor and the application under Section 9 was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the insolvency application was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party to a joint venture or joint development arrangement does not become an operational creditor of the other party unless the claim arises from a real supply of goods or services to that other party.

---