Sunday 18 December 2022

Khatunaresh Impex Private Limited Vs Jindal (India) Limited - In absence of any contract interest on operational debt cannot be added for the purpose of threshold limit under section 4.

NCLT Kolkata (07.12.2022) in Khatunaresh Impex Private Limited Vs Jindal (India) Limited  [C.P. (IB)/291(KB)2022] held that in absence of any contract interest on operational debt cannot be added for the purpose of threshold limit under section 4; 

  • # 4 .  . . . . We are not satisfied that there was any contract or agreement in any manner for payment of interest at the rate 15% or at any rate between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor.

  • # 5. It looks that this amount has been claimed only make it to cross the threshold limit. This is not a recovery forum. Such kind of petition are purely wastage of time.

 

Excerpts of the order;.

# 1. Ld. Counsel for the parties present.

 

# 2. This petition has been filed where the principal amount in default is claimed to be  90,60,102/-. Admittedly this amount is below the threshold limit. 15% interest has been claimed over the principal amount. Reliance has been placed on two letters written by Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor claiming interest.

 

# 3. It is stated since the Corporate Debtor did not dispute, therefore, the presumption is that he accepted this rate of interest and therefore, this the amount of default is over One Crore.

 

# 4. It is further stated though not pleaded anywhere there was any verbal assurance given by Corporate Debtor to pay interest @ 15%. We are not satisfied that there was any contract or agreement in any manner for payment of interest at the rate 15% or at any rate between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor.

 

# 5. It looks that this amount has been claimed only make it to cross the threshold limit. This is not a recovery forum. Such kind of petition are purely wastage of time

 

# 6. We deem it proper that this petition is liable to be rejected at this stage. This petition is, therefore, rejected as not maintainable.

 

------------------------------------------------


No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer:

The sole purpose of this post is to create awareness on the "IBC - Case Law" and to provide synopsis of the concerned case law, must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must refer to the full citation of the order & do one's own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this post.