Operational creditor cannot claim priority over financial creditor in asset distribution under Section 53 IBC

NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed appellant's challenge to asset distribution priority. The operational creditor appellant sought preference over respondent financial creditor, arguing respondent's related party status should lower its priority under Section 53 IBC. NCLAT held Section 53(1) clearly establishes financial debts to unsecured creditors rank higher than operational debts, with operational creditors falling under remaining debts category. Related party status affects voting rights and representation in Committee of Creditors under Section 21, not liquidation distribution priority. The distinction between financial and operational debts, upheld by SC in Swiss Ribbon, remains valid regardless of related party relationships in asset distribution.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Priority of payment distribution between Operational Creditor and Financial Creditor under Section 53 of the IBC.
2. Treatment of related party Financial Creditor in the distribution of liquidation assets.
3. Applicability of previous judgments and legal precedents in the context of liquidation distribution.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Priority of Payment Distribution Between Operational Creditor and Financial Creditor Under Section 53 of the IBC:

The core issue in this appeal is whether the Operational Creditor (Appellant) has priority in payment distribution over the Financial Creditor (Respondent No.2) during the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor, as per Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority had previously rejected the Appellant's claim, stating that Section 53 does not differentiate between unsecured financial creditors and related party unsecured financial creditors. The Appellant argued that the Financial Creditor, being a related party, should not be given priority over the Operational Creditor. However, the judgment clarified that financial debts owed to unsecured creditors rank higher than operational debts under Section 53(1)(d) of the IBC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India" upheld the constitutional validity of Section 53, reinforcing the differentiation between financial debts and operational debts, emphasizing the economic rationale behind such differentiation.

2. Treatment of Related Party Financial Creditor in the Distribution of Liquidation Assets:

The Appellant contended that the related party Financial Creditor should be treated as an equity shareholder under Section 53(1)(h) and not be given priority over the Operational Creditor. The Respondent No.2, who had resigned as a director in 2013, argued that even if considered a related party, they should still be treated as an unsecured financial creditor. The judgment highlighted that the definition of 'financial debt' under Section 5(8) of the IBC does not exclude debts from related parties. The related party's involvement is restricted under Sections 21 and 29A of the IBC, primarily concerning representation and participation in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and eligibility to propose a Resolution Plan. The judgment concluded that the related party Financial Creditor is still classified under unsecured financial creditors for the purpose of distribution under Section 53.

3. Applicability of Previous Judgments and Legal Precedents in the Context of Liquidation Distribution:

The Appellant relied on several judgments, including "J.R. Agro Industries P. Limited v. Swadisht Oils P. Ltd." and "Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited & Anr.", to support their claim for priority. However, the judgment clarified that these cases were contextually different, primarily dealing with Resolution Plans and not liquidation distribution. The judgment also referenced "Shailesh Sangani vs. Joel Cardoso and Anr", which supported the classification of loans from promoters or directors as financial debts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in "M.K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr." was also discussed, emphasizing that related parties are treated differently in the CoC but not necessarily in liquidation distribution.

Conclusion:

The judgment affirmed that the Appellant, as an Operational Creditor, cannot claim priority over the Financial Creditor (Respondent No.2) in the distribution of liquidation assets. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was upheld, emphasizing that Section 53 of the IBC does not provide for differentiation between related and unrelated unsecured financial creditors in the context of liquidation distribution. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the established hierarchy of claims under Section 53.

---