Appeal fails as reseller investment not financial debt; appellant not financial creditor under Sections 5(7) and 5(8) IBC

NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld rejection of the CIRP petition, holding that the appellant is not a "financial creditor" under s.5(7) read with s.5(8) IBC. The tribunal found that the underlying Reseller Agreement created a commercial collaboration and revenue-sharing model, not a loan or borrowing involving disbursement against consideration for time value of money. The assured returns constituted profit margin contingent on business performance, not interest on a debt. No obligation of repayment over a specified period with interest was established, and correspondence between the parties did not alter the transaction's commercial character. Consequently, the claimed amount did not constitute "financial debt" and the appellant lacked locus to initiate CIRP.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the sums advanced by the appellant under the Reseller Agreement and addenda constitute a "financial debt" within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

1.2 Whether, on the facts and documentation, the appellant qualifies as a "financial creditor" under Section 5(7) entitled to maintain an application under Section 7 of the Code.

1.3 Whether the commercial arrangement governed by the Reseller Agreement, containing an arbitration clause, could properly be made the subject of a CIRP petition, or whether recourse ought to have been to arbitration, rendering the invocation of the Code an abuse of process.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

2.1 Characterisation of the transaction as "financial debt" under Section 5(8) IBC

2.1.1 Legal framework

2.1.1(a) The Court referred to Section 5(8) of the Code, particularly clause (f), which defines "financial debt" as a debt, with or without interest, disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money, including "any amount raised under any other transaction, including any forward sale or purchase agreement, having the commercial effect of a borrowing".

2.1.1(b) Relying on the judgment in Anuj Jain, IRP of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., the Court reiterated that: (i) disbursal against consideration for time value of money is an essential element of "financial debt"; (ii) this element must be traceable in any of the sub-clauses of Section 5(8); and (iii) a financial creditor is typically one with direct engagement in the functioning of the corporate debtor, involved from the beginning and in its financial restructuring.

2.1.2 Interpretation and reasoning

2.1.2(a) The Court analysed the Reseller Agreement dated 07.12.2020 and noted the following essential features:

- The appellant is expressly termed a "Reseller", defined as the party purchasing products from the respondent with the sole purpose of reselling them on Amazon.

- The relationship is expressly that of "seller and buyer" on a principal-to-principal basis, not of principal and agent.

- The appellant agreed to pay a "consideration amount" of Rs. 20 lakhs and to make advance payments for sale of goods, against which the respondent was to dispatch goods within 15 days.

- The Reseller was to reinvest amounts received from Amazon for the first six months with the respondent; only thereafter could the reseller withdraw a 7% "profit" amount on Rs. 20 lakhs.

2.1.2(b) On this basis, the Court held that the underlying arrangement was a commercial reseller/distribution agreement for purchase and resale of branded goods on Amazon, not a lending or borrowing transaction. There was:

- No clause evidencing a loan, interest, repayment schedule, or acknowledgment of borrowing;

- No indication that the respondent undertook a debt obligation to repay a sum with interest over time; rather, the appellant was to earn profit margins from resale activities.

2.1.2(c) The Court emphasised that the obligation to reinvest initial Amazon proceeds for six months and the right thereafter to take out 7% "profit" clearly reflected a revenue/profit-sharing business model, inconsistent with a debt or lending structure. The so-called "assured returns" were characterised as profit margins from commercial activity, not interest on a loan.

2.1.2(d) The Court considered the appellant's argument that promised returns of 7%, 9% and 12% per month on successively increased "investments" (Rs. 20 lakhs, Rs. 50 lakhs, Rs. 1 crore) constituted time value of money. The Court reasoned that a 12% monthly return (144% per annum, without compounding) is commercially incongruent with a typical borrowing arrangement and is more consistent with speculative commercial profit-sharing than with a financial debt.

2.1.2(e) The Court noted that in many distributorship, reseller or joint venture arrangements, parties agree on fixed returns or margins; however, such fixed margins do not by themselves convert the transaction into "financial debt" unless the structure clearly reflects a disbursal against consideration for time value of money and has the commercial effect of a borrowing.

2.1.2(f) Referring to its own decisions in Ambica Enclave Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashrae Baba Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Neeraj Jain v. Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies, the Court reiterated that:

- Advance payments for commercial purposes, even with clauses for fixed returns, do not amount to financial debt unless structured as a loan/borrowing.

- Contributions made as part of commercial partnerships or collaborations, without a clear intention of repayment with interest, do not qualify as financial debt.

2.1.2(g) Applying these principles, the Court found that the appellant's arrangement was a revenue-sharing/commercial reseller business model, with returns conditional and contingent on business outcomes, not a disbursal carrying time value of money in the sense of the Code.

2.1.2(h) The Court held that emails and correspondence in which the respondent acknowledged receipt of funds or certain liabilities could not alter the basic nature of the original transaction. Mere admission of amounts due in a commercial relationship does not convert that relationship into one of financial debt for IBC purposes; the nature and purpose of the original arrangement remain determinative.

2.1.2(i) The Court also took note that the respondent's books of account and balance sheet did not reflect the appellant's funds as a loan or borrowing, nor treat the appellant as a creditor. This accounting treatment supported the conclusion that the parties did not intend the arrangement to be a borrowing carrying time value of money.

2.1.3 Conclusions

2.1.3(a) The disbursement by the appellant under the Reseller Agreement and addenda was not "disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money" and did not have the commercial effect of a borrowing under Section 5(8)(f).

2.1.3(b) The transaction was a commercial reseller/distribution arrangement with profit-sharing or margin-based compensation, not a financial lending/borrowing transaction.

2.1.3(c) The essential ingredients of "financial debt" under Section 5(8), as interpreted in Anuj Jain and subsequent NCLAT decisions, were absent; the claim did not constitute a "financial debt" under the Code.

2.2 Status of the appellant as "financial creditor" and maintainability of Section 7 application

2.2.1 Legal framework

2.2.1(a) The Court noted that under Section 5(7), a "financial creditor" is a person to whom a "financial debt" is owed, and that only a financial creditor is entitled to initiate CIRP under Section 7.

2.2.1(b) Referring again to Anuj Jain, the Court observed that a financial creditor is typically one with a direct financial engagement in the functioning and viability of the corporate debtor, including in its restructuring during financial stress.

2.2.2 Interpretation and reasoning

2.2.2(a) Having found that the amount claimed by the appellant did not constitute "financial debt", the Court held that the condition precedent for recognising the appellant as a financial creditor failed.

2.2.2(b) The Court also observed that there was no material to show that the appellant played any role akin to that of a financial creditor in the corporate debtor's business, such as assessing viability, participating in restructuring, or functioning as a lender/guardian of the business. The relationship remained confined to commercial resale of goods.

2.2.2(c) The Court held that correspondence and acknowledgements by the respondent, even if evidencing some unpaid commercial liability, could only found a civil/commercial dispute; they did not transform the appellant into a financial creditor within the meaning of the Code.

2.2.3 Conclusions

2.2.3(a) As the underlying claim is not a financial debt, the appellant is not a "financial creditor" under Section 5(7) of the Code.

2.2.3(b) Consequently, the appellant has no locus to invoke Section 7, and the Section 7 petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold for want of a qualifying financial debt and creditor status.

2.3 Effect of arbitration clause and propriety of invoking CIRP for a commercial dispute

2.3.1 Legal framework

2.3.1(a) Clause 18 of the Reseller Agreement provides that any dispute between the parties shall be resolved by a sole arbitrator seated at New Delhi, with the arbitral award being final and binding, and costs borne by the unsuccessful party unless otherwise directed.

2.3.2 Interpretation and reasoning

2.3.2(a) The Court noted the existence of the arbitration clause as evidence that the parties had consciously agreed to submit disputes arising out of the Reseller Agreement to arbitration.

2.3.2(b) In light of its finding that the underlying relationship was purely commercial and not one of financial debt, the Court viewed the dispute as one that should have been resolved through the contractually agreed arbitral mechanism rather than by invoking the CIRP provisions of the Code.

2.3.2(c) The Court observed that attempting to trigger CIRP in such a commercial, non-financial-debt setting amounted to misuse of the insolvency process, particularly where a complete alternate dispute resolution forum (arbitration) was contractually stipulated.

2.3.3 Conclusions

2.3.3(a) The presence of a comprehensive arbitration clause reinforces that the parties contemplated commercial dispute resolution through arbitration, not insolvency proceedings.

2.3.3(b) Invoking the CIRP mechanism in the absence of a financial debt and in the face of an agreed arbitration clause was characterised as an abuse of the insolvency process.

2.4 Final determination

2.4.1 The Court held that the amounts advanced by the appellant under the Reseller Agreement and addenda do not constitute "financial debt" under the Code.

2.4.2 The appellant is not a "financial creditor" within the meaning of Section 5(7) and is therefore not entitled to maintain an application under Section 7.

2.4.3 The dispute, being purely commercial and governed by an arbitration clause, ought to be pursued, if at all, through arbitration or other appropriate civil remedies, not through CIRP.

2.4.4 The appeal was dismissed, and the findings of the Adjudicating Authority were affirmed, with no order as to costs.

---