To quantify the nature of a debt arising out of monetary transactions, an agreement in explicit is required to determine the real nature of the transaction to classify whether it is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt, more so to determine the date of default – Gokul Sai Udyog LLP Vs. Katyayni Contractors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench
In this case, the applicant claims to be a financial creditor relying on a resolution passed in the partner’s meeting of the LLP.
Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench observed that:
(i) The purported resolution document dated 11.05.2017, contains a GSTIN number when GST was not in force, we cannot place reliance on this document. This is because the GST Acts came into effect only from 01.07.2017.
(ii) The Respondent, in its Balance sheet has shown it under the head “other payable’’ and not under “Borrowings”.
(iii) In the absence of any formal written agreement or any other evidence, we are unable to decide whether the debt owed by the Corporate Debtor is an operational debt or a financial debt particularly when the books of the corporate debtor deals with the debt in question as “other payable” and not as “borrowings”.
(iv) to quantify the nature of a debt arising out of monetary transactions, an agreement in explicit is required to determine the real nature of the transaction to classify whether it is a financial debt or an operational debt, more so to determine the date of default.