SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2097

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Rajeev Bhardwaj, Judicial Member, Sanjay Puri, Technical Member
Karne Ramesh Babu – Appellant
Versus
Kalzen Contech Private Limited – Respondent
CP(IB) No. 203/7/HDB/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dishit Bhattacharjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Srikanth Rathi

For an amount to qualify as a 'financial debt' under the IBC, there must be a disbursal of money against consideration for the time value of money; equity investments or business contributions lacking this commercial element of borrowing do not satisfy the criteria for initiating CIRP.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 5(7), 5(8) and 7 - Financial debt - Definition of - Essential requirement of disbursal against consideration for time value of money - Ingredients of financial debt absent in share application/investment money - Principle of res judicata does not apply when earlier petition dismissed on technical grounds.

(B) Financial Creditor - Status of - When funds infused are categorized as equity investment rather than a returnable loan, the invesdor cannot claim the status of a financial creditor to trigger corporate insolvency resolution process.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged default in repayment of financial assistance totaling over Rs. 5.9 Crores, including interest. The corporate debtor argued that the funds were equity investments under a shareholders' agreement and not a loan, and that the petition was barred by res judicata.

Findings of Court:
Court found that the petitioner's own conduct in filing an FIR revealed the funds were investments, contradicting the loan claim. Furthermore, the Memorandum of Agreement lacked interest stipulations, failing the "time value of money" test for financial debt.

Issues: Whether the amount claimed constitutes a "financial debt" under the Code and whether the petition is maintainable despite a previous dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: An investment in equity or business ventures does not constitute a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the IBC if there is no disbursal against consideration for the time value of money, regardless of subsequent promises to pay premiums.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. dismissal on technical grounds does not trigger res judicata. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
2. capital investment in equity does not constitute a financial debt. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
3. absence of disbursal against 'time value of money' defeats the claim of financial debt. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)

ORDER

1. The present application under section 7 is filed by the Karne Ramesh Babu (herein after referred to as ‘Petitioner’ or ‘Financial Creditor’) Under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) read with Rule 4 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 against Kalzen Contech Private Limited (herein after referred to as ‘Respondent’ or ‘Corporate Debtor’), inter alia seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) for default of Rs.5,98,79,184/- (Five Crores Ninety-eight Lakhs Seventy-nine thousand and one hundred and eighty-four rupees only).

Petition:

1. It is submitted that, Corporate Debtor is a company engaged in the business of construction activities, and approached the Petitioner seeking financial assistance for its business operations. Pursuant to such request, the Financial Creditor extended financial assistance (with equity as security), from time to time through various modes, including transfers from his personal account, his firm’s account, and cash payments, aggregating to a total sum of Rs. 1,98,61,990/- in the following manner:

Sl.No Nature of Disbursement Amount Disbursed
01. From Personal Account of the Financial Creditor Rs. 81,30,000/-
02. From his own Firm's Account Rs. 68,50,000/-
03. Additional disbursed on demand Rs. 36,31,990/-
04. Amounts Deposited in Cash Rs. 12,50,000/-
Total Rs. 1,98,61,990/-

2. According to the Petitioner, the aforesaid amounts were duly acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor as financial debt, inter alia, vide email dated 10.01.20231Annexure-7 of the petition at page 74, wherein the Corporate Debtor undertook to repay the same within a period of 60–90 days. However, despite such acknowledgment and assurance, the Corporate Debtor failed to adhere to the agreed repayment terms.

3. Further, it is contended that, although certain part payments aggregating to Rs. 19,00,000/- were made by the Corporate Debtor, the substantial outstanding amount remained unpaid. In continuation thereof, the Corporate Debtor is stated to have issued a cheque for Rs. 30,00,000/- towards part repayment; however, the said cheque was dishonoured2Annexure 9 of the petition at page 79 to 80 upon presentation, thereby evidencing the continued default.

4. It is further contended that, a Memorandum of Agreement dated 20.06.20223Annexure 8 of the petition at page 76 to 78 (“MoA”) was executed between the parties, whereby the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay a premium amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- within a period of two years, i.e., on or before 20.06.2024, towards the investments, loans, and other value additions made by the Financial Creditor. The Corporate Debtor has failed to honour the obligations arising under the said agreement as well.

5. In these circumstances, as per the Petitioner, the Corporate Debtor committed default in repayment of the loan, the date of default being 14.03.2023. Despite repeated reminders and follow-ups, the Corporate Debtor has failed to discharge its liability. As per the computation placed on record, the total amount in default, including interest calculated at 24% per annum, stands at Rs. 5,98,79,184/- in the following manner:

Sl. No. Date Details of Transfer Principal Rs. Period Outstanding Interest Amount @ 24% pa Total Rs.
1. 05-12-2020 to 20-04-2021 Direct Transfers from K Ramesh to Kalzen Contech (P) Ltd. 81,30,000/- 30 months 48,78,000/- 1,30,08,000/-
2. 18-03-2021 to 23-03-2021 Direct Transfers from K Ramesh through his firm AEI to Kalzen Contech(P) Ltd. 68,50,000/- 30 months 41,10,000/- 1,09,60,000/-
3. 10-11-2020 to 29-07-2021 Addition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top