JUDGEMENT

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 572 of 2022 titled as ‘Minions Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. TDT Copper Ltd.’ (hereinafter referred as ‘Appeal No. 1’) and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 780 of 2022 titled as ‘V.R Ashok Rao & Ors. Vs. TDT Copper Ltd.’ (hereinafter referred as ‘Appeal No. 2’) as both the appeals have been filed against the same impugned order dated 11.03.2022 passed in CP (IB) No. 1093(ND)/2020 by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench – V) by which application filed by the Appellants in appeal no. 2 as Financial Creditors under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short ‘Code’) has been dismissed but liberty was granted to file an appropriate application under Section 9 of the Code in accordance with law.

2. The brief facts of this case are that TDT Copper Limited (Corporate Debtor) purchased certain copper products from M/s Ashoka Creations Pvt.

Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘Seller’) who had raised five different invoices for a total sum of Rs. 3,42,03,903/-. The Appellant in the first appeal, namely, ‘Minions Ventures Pvt. Ltd.’ is a private limited company. Through its online KredX provides a platform for invoice-discounting/reverse invoice discounting to raise working capital. The Corporate Debtor and the Seller are both registered on KredX for availing its services of invoice discounting.

In this regard, the Seller executed a Seller Services Agreement dated 29.12.2018 with ‘Minions Venture Pvt. Ltd.’ and the Corporate Debtor also executed a Seller Services Agreement dated 28.12.2018 with ‘Minions Venture Pvt. Ltd.’ electronically. The Appellants in the second appeal are registered on KredX as the ‘Financiers’ who provide finance to the concerned party. Similar agreements were also executed by the Appellants in second appeal with ‘Minion Ventures Pvt.

Ltd.’ to avail the invoice discounting/reverse invoice discounting platform. It is alleged that the Corporate Debtor uploaded the invoices raised on it by the Seller and were listed on KredX’s invoice discounting/reverse invoice discounting platform.

Pursuant to which, the Appellants in the second appeal, Corporate Debtor, Seller and the Appellant in the first appeal executed a separate and independent ‘Agreement for Creation of Rights (COR) for creating rights in the receivables under the invoices in favour of the Appellants in the second appeal. It is further alleged that after the execution of the COR Agreements, the Appellants in the second appeal discounted the invoices and deposited the amounts in an escrow account maintained by KredX with Yes Bank Ltd.

and the said amount was transferred to the account of the Seller as a result of which, the liability of the Corporate Debtor towards Seller stood extinguished and the Corporate Debtor owed the same liability to the Appellants in the second appeal. It is thus alleged that the Appellants in the second appeal were to get resolution of the debt amount due from the Corporate Debtor but since the amount was not serviced despite communication by the Appellant in the first appeal who called upon the Corporate Debtor to make the payment, the Appellants in the second appeal filed an application under Section 7 of the Code as a Financial Creditor but the said application was dismissed on the ground that the Appellants have stepped into shoes of the Operational Creditor (Seller), therefore, their application under Section 7 of the Code as a Financial Creditor was not maintainable and were rather held eligible to file an application under Section 9 of the Code instead. In this regard, finding has been recorded in paras 36, 37 and 38 of the impugned order by the Adjudicating Authority which are reproduced as under:-

“36. Now we consider the submissions of the applicants in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra, and we observe, here in the case in h