Contradicting selections: failure to pay hire a enterprise debt or not?

Problem: Contradicting decisions: non-payment of the rent a business debt or not?

In 2018 through the fall of M. Ravindranath Reddy v. G. Kishan & Ors.The Tribunal held that the landlord who filed a request for the recovery of the alleged increased lease rent cannot be treated as an operating debtor because that lease rent does not fall under any of these categories:

“A) Provision of goods;

(b) provision of services, including employment; or

(c) a debt arising under any statute payable to the government / local authority ”as provided in Section 5 (20) and Section 5 (21) of the Code.

Later in the case of Anup Sushil Dubey v National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited & Ors. This was decided by the NCLAT in 2020. The tribunal found that leases resulting from the use and use of a cold store intended for business and commercial purposes are to be regarded as operating debt under Section 5 (21) of the IBC, 2016.

Recently in the case of Promila Taneja v. Surendri Design Pvt Ltd.A landlord filed the application under Section 9 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 2016. He was rejected by the competent authority on the grounds that the “rent” of real estate does not fall under the operating debt provided for in Section 5 (21) of the IBC by the Adjudicating Authority and the NCLAT.

The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court and found that the NCLAT had already issued two contradicting judgments in 2018 and 2020. The Supreme Court published a notice on the same appeal against the NCLAT’s decisions.

Comments are closed.