2025 (3) TMI 129 - AT - IBC

Appellant's claim that Interest Free Maintenance Security constitutes financial debt under Section 7 rejected for lacking time value element

NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed appeal challenging rejection of Section 7 application. Appellant claimed Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) from ... Rejection of Section 7 Application filed by the appellant - demand of amount of Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) from the corporate debtor, towards maintenance of common area services, installation, common passage, etc. - financial debt or not - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr.’ Vs. ‘Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’ [2024 (4) TMI 1067 - SUPREME COURT], has laid down that for finding out the character of the debt, nature of the transaction entered between the parties has to be captured and find out and it is only after determining the real nature of transaction, issue can be answered as to whether there is a financial debt or not. The amount which is paid by the allottee towards IFMS security is the amount which is paid towards obtaining services and the amount is payable to the vendors/nominated maintenance agencies. The services thus are to be provided by vendor or maintenance agencies. For being a financial debt within meaning of Section 5(8), the amount needs to be disbursed against the consideration of time value of money and includes thus disbursement for time value of money is a condition precedent for falling any transaction within a definition of financial debt. Conclusion - The finding of the Adjudicating Authority holding that amount in question i.e., IFMS does not amount to financial debt, suffers from no infirmity. Appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue considered in this case is whether the Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) collected by the corporate debtor from the unitholders qualifies as a 'financial debt' under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), thereby making the appellant's application under Section 7 maintainable.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe primary legal framework revolves around the definition of 'financial debt' under Section 5(8) of the IBC. This section defines financial debt as a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and includes any amount raised under any other transaction having the commercial effect of a borrowing. The explanation to Section 5(8)(f) deems any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project as having the commercial effect of a borrowing. Relevant precedents include the judgments in 'Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited & Anr.' Vs. 'Union of India & Ors.' and 'Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr.' Vs. 'Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.', which emphasize the necessity of disbursement against the consideration for time value of money for a debt to be classified as financial.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal considered the nature of the transaction between the corporate debtor and the unitholders. The IFMS was collected for maintaining common areas and facilities, as stipulated in Clauses 26 and 27 of the Conveyance Deed. The Tribunal interpreted these clauses to mean that the IFMS was paid for obtaining services related to maintenance and was not disbursed against the consideration for time value of money. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set in 'Corab India Private Limited' Vs. 'Mr. Birendra Kumar Aggarwal' to underscore that security deposits or similar payments made for obtaining services do not qualify as financial debt.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal examined the Conveyance Deed executed between the corporate debtor and the allottees, focusing on Clauses 26 and 27. These clauses outlined the purpose of the IFMS as a security for maintenance services, payable to the vendor or a nominated maintenance agency. The Tribunal found no evidence of disbursement for time value of money, which is a requisite for classifying a transaction as a financial debt.Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the definition of financial debt from Section 5(8) of the IBC to the facts of the case. It determined that the IFMS was not disbursed for time value of money but was a payment for services related to maintenance, thus falling outside the scope of financial debt as defined by the IBC.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe appellant argued that the IFMS should be classified as a financial debt under Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC, asserting that it was collected as a financial arrangement with the commercial effect of a borrowing. The Tribunal rejected this argument, distinguishing the case from the precedent of 'Vipul Green Residence Welfare Association' Vs. 'Vipul Limited' and emphasizing the need for disbursement against time value of money, which was absent in this case.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the IFMS did not constitute a financial debt under the IBC. Consequently, the application under Section 7 was deemed not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles EstablishedThe Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that for a debt to qualify as a financial debt under the IBC, it must involve disbursement against the consideration for time value of money. Payments made for services, such as maintenance, do not meet this criterion and therefore cannot be classified as financial debt.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Tribunal held that the IFMS collected by the corporate debtor did not meet the criteria of a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the IBC. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the Section 7 application.