NCLAT rules decree holder qualifies as Financial Creditor under IBC when debt arises from financial transactions

NCLAT Principal Bench allowed the appeal, setting aside NCLT's order dated 24.04.2023. The tribunal held that a decree holder qualifies as a Financial Creditor under IBC when debt arises from financial transactions, as evidenced by the settlement agreement. The Section 7 petition was not barred by limitation since respondent's acknowledgments before Delhi HC on multiple dates in 2018 extended the limitation period under Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963. The petition filed in October 2019 was within the extended limitation period, and NCLT erred in dismissing it on limitation grounds.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Petition filed by the Appellant is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the Appellant, as a Decree Holder, qualifies as a "Financial Creditor" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Period:
The central question here was whether the Petition filed by the Appellant was time-barred. According to the Appellant, the cause of action arose when the cheque issued by the Respondent was dishonoured on 07.04.2016. The Appellant argued that the limitation period was extended due to acknowledgments made by the Respondent on various dates, including 23.08.2018, 04.09.2018, and 17.09.2018, as recorded by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. These acknowledgments, as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, extended the limitation period, making the Petition filed on 15.10.2019 within the permissible timeframe. The Tribunal accepted this argument, noting that the Respondent had acknowledged the debt multiple times, thus extending the limitation period.

2. Status as a Financial Creditor:
The Appellant contended that as a Decree Holder, they should be considered a "Financial Creditor" under the IBC. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy & Anr., which clarified that a Decree Holder could be classified as a Financial Creditor if the decree is based on a financial debt. The Settlement Agreement dated 11.09.2014, which formed the basis of the decree, was recognized as a financial transaction. The Tribunal emphasized that the decree did not change the nature of the underlying financial debt. Therefore, the Appellant, as a Decree Holder, was indeed a Financial Creditor under Sections 5(7) and 5(8) of the IBC.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant qualifies as a Financial Creditor and that the Petition under Section 7 of the IBC was filed within the limitation period. Consequently, the NCLT's Order dated 24.04.2023 was found to be erroneous and was set aside.

Order:
The Appeal was allowed, and the Impugned Order was set aside. The Application filed by the Appellant under Section 7 of the IBC was admitted, and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent was initiated. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to appoint an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and take necessary steps as per the IBC within 15 days of the presentation of the order. No order as to costs was made.

---