Advance payments for goods/services treated as operational debt under IBC Section 9; CIRP admission upheld despite assignment, cheque case

An appeal challenged admission of a Section 9 IBC application on grounds that advance payments were not "operational debt," default was not established, assignment was unregistered, and Section 138 NI Act proceedings were pending. Applying SC law, the Appellate Tribunal held that advances for goods/services constitute operational debt; the debtor's plea of delayed site handover was vague and unsupported, while communications seeking time and a dishonoured cheque evidenced admission of liability and default, so CIRP admission was sustained. It further held that registration of an assignment deed is not a condition precedent for a valid transfer of debt enabling the assignee to maintain Section 9 proceedings, and that Section 138 proceedings are independent and do not bar Section 9. The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order was upheld.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the advance paid under a works/purchase order arrangement constitutes an "operational debt" capable of being pursued under the insolvency framework.

(ii) Whether the record (undertaking letters, issuance/dishonour of cheques, and email assurances) establishes an admission of liability and an admitted default for the purposes of admission of the creditor's application.

(iii) Whether the "date of default" had to be treated as the extended completion date, and whether any variance in the stated default date vitiates the insolvency admission when the demand notice is otherwise post-default and within limitation.

(iv) Whether the corporate debtor could rely, at the appellate stage, on the factual plea that work could not be completed due to non-handover of site, and whether that plea constituted a sustainable defence on the record.

(v) Whether alleged non-registration of an assignment of debt defeats the assignee's entitlement to maintain the insolvency application.

(vi) Whether pendency/quashing of criminal proceedings (including cheque dishonour proceedings) affects maintainability or adjudication of the insolvency application.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

A. Advance payment as "operational debt"

Legal framework: The Tribunal considered the statutory definition of "operational debt" under the insolvency law and applied the judicial principle (as relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority and affirmed in appeal) that an advance paid for supply of goods/services under a contract bears the necessary nexus with provision of goods/services.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the advance was paid in furtherance of the contractual scope of works and therefore falls within the ambit of operational debt. The objection that an "advance amount" cannot be operational debt was treated as no longer open for debate in view of the applied principle that advance payments for goods/services under contracts constitute operational debt.

Conclusion: The claim for refund of the advance (with the contractual nexus to works/services) was held to be an operational debt, and the insolvency application was maintainable on that footing.

B. Admission of debt and establishment of default from undertakings/cheques/emails

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the undertaking communications by which the corporate debtor acknowledged receipt of the advance and committed to refund amounts corresponding to delayed/non-completed work, coupled with issuance of cheques towards the amount. These writings were treated as evidencing a contractual obligation and an admission of liability. Dishonour of the cheques was considered significant because issuance of the negotiable instrument itself was treated as an admission of liability, which the debtor did not deny. The Court further treated the debtor's email replies containing assurances to remit the due amount as reinforcing an implied admission of debt and default, particularly since the debtor responded to the emails and did not deny their contents.

Conclusion: The letters/undertakings, cheques (and their dishonour), and email assurances were held to compositely establish admission of liability and payability of an operational debt and support the finding of default justifying admission of the insolvency process.

C. Determination of "date of default" and effect of variance

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that where the completion timeline was extended by a later undertaking, the default could not be pegged to the original completion date. On the Court's reading, the extended completion date governed; therefore, default (if any) would arise on failure to complete by the extended date. The Court also accepted that the demand notice was issued after default and within limitation; accordingly, an inexact or varying articulation of the default date did not vitiate the insolvency admission in the circumstances considered, particularly where there was no attempt to evade limitation or similar statutory restrictions.

Conclusion: The operative default date was held to be the extended completion date, and the insolvency admission was not set aside merely due to variance in the stated default date, since the demand notice was post-default and within limitation.

D. Plea of non-handover of site raised for the first time in appeal

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court declined to entertain the site non-handover plea because it was introduced for the first time at the appellate stage and was factual in nature requiring evidence. Additionally, on the contractual material referred to by the Court, responsibilities relating to site readiness (including clearing vegetation, road development, land clearing, and right-of-way handling) were attributed to the corporate debtor, undermining the plea on merits. The Court also noted the absence of earlier contemporaneous reliance on this issue despite repeated commitments to complete the work.

Conclusion: The non-handover-of-site contention was held to be an inadmissible new factual defence in appeal and, in any event, not sustainable on the contractual allocation of responsibilities; it did not justify interference with the insolvency admission.

E. Non-registration of assignment as a bar to maintaining the application

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that registration of an assignment deed is not a condition precedent for an assignee to pursue the insolvency remedy on the assigned debt. The assignment was treated as a creditor-to-assignee transaction recognised by the insolvency framework, enabling the assignee to step into the shoes of the original applicant.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-registration of the assignment was rejected; the assignee's right to maintain the insolvency application was upheld.

F. Effect of cheque dishonour/criminal proceedings on insolvency proceedings

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that criminal proceedings arising from dishonour of cheques, or their quashing in separate criminal process, have no bearing on adjudication under the insolvency framework, which is civil in nature and proceeds independently. The Court further held that pendency of such criminal proceedings does not curtail the operational creditor's right to invoke the insolvency remedy.

Conclusion: The insolvency admission was not affected by the existence, pendency, or outcome of criminal proceedings relating to the cheque; the insolvency process was to be determined independently on the existence of operational debt and default.

Overall disposition (material to decision): On the above findings-operational debt character of the advance, admissions of liability/default, no fatal defect arising from default-date variance, rejection of new factual defence, validity of assignment without registration, and irrelevance of criminal proceedings-the Court found no basis to interfere with the admission of the insolvency process.

---