Skip to main content

Legal Capsule by LexCounsel


JudgmentGujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs Nitash Co-generation Private Limited

Forum: National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (“NCLT”).

Act/Law: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

Ratio: Claim for “Liquidated Damages” cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, unless adjudicated upon by a court of law. Proceedings under the Code are not for ascertaining or crystallizing the quantum of damages.

Factual Matrix:

  • Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (“Gujrat Urja/Petitioner”) and Nitash Co-generation Private Limited (“Nitash/Corporate Debtor”) entered into a power purchase agreement (“Agreement”) in terms of which Nitash was to arrange for inter connection facilities and supply electricity/power to Gujrat Urja. The Scheduled Commercial Operation Date (“SCOD”) was agreed to be upon conclusion of 48 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. 06.06.2011.
  • Nitash, however, failed to meet the SCOD and Gujrat Urja claimed from Nitash liquidated damages, as stipulated under Clause 4.3 of their Agreement.
  • Gujrat Urja filed a petition under the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Gujrat Electricity Regulatory Commission for claiming Rs.6,59,19,000/- towards liquidated damages with interest @15% per annum. The Commission adjudicated in favour of Gujrat Urja. However, despite directions, no payment was made by Nitash.
  • Thereafter, a petition was filed by Gujarat Urja for execution of the order of the Commission in which Gujarat Urja was, by order dated 20.09.2016 (“Order”), directed to “take appropriate course of action as per the provisions of applicable law for recovery of the liquidated damages as decided in the Commission’s order dated 06.11.2012 in Petition No. 1202 of 2012” .
  • Gujrat Urja, thereafter proceeded to file a Petition under Section 9 of the Code on the basis of the execution order, after serving the demand notice issued under Section 8 of the Code.
  • Nitash in reply to the notice under Section 8 of the Code, acknowledged the liability to pay and sought further two years’ time to make the payment. By way of written submissions, Nitash defended the claim of Gujrat Urja on various counts, more specifically stating that Gujrat Urja is not an operational creditor in terms of the Code.
Issue for Consideration:

(i)      Whether Gujrat Urja is an operational creditor in terms of the definitions under the Code?
(ii)     Whether there was any provision of goods and services by Gujrat Urja to Nitash?

While deciding the above question, NCLT relying upon the observation in the Order which directed Gujarat Urja to “take appropriate course of action as per the provisions of applicable law for recovery of the liquidated damages as decided in the Commission’s order dated 06.11.2012 in Petition No. 1202 of 2012” observed the following:

  1. The debt in question is neither crystallised nor adjudicated upon;
  2. The liquidated damages even if stipulated, can only be crystallised, once adjudicated upon by a court of law;
  3. The reasonability and the quantum of damages in a claim and is subject to adjudication;
  4. The damages as claimed for in the present case, is the subject matter of a civil suit; and
  5. NCLT is not the appropriate forum to decide on the very reasonability and quantum of liquidated damages.
NCLT then went on to analyse the definition of liquidated damages and operational debt. NCLT noted that Gujrat Urja neither supplied any goods nor rendered any services to Nitash. Therefore, NCLT held that the damages as sought by Gujrat Urja in the present case do not qualify as an operational debt.


Insolvency proceedings under the Code are expeditious and deterrent and we have witnessed a trend that a number of creditors “try their luck” by first initiating insolvency proceedings in relation to their contractual claims. In many such cases, the risk averse companies, i.e. the Corporate Debtors settle the matter, thereby resulting in speedy recovery of the claims of the creditors.

The judgment is a welcome step to discourage such creditors from filing insolvency proceedings where claims have not yet attained finality. In terms of the judgment, a claim for liquidated damages attains finality upon a decree by a court of law and not prior thereto.

If you have questions or would like additional information on the material covered herein, please contact:

Ms. Swet Shikha, Associate

Popular posts from this blog

VC Interview: Shailendra Singh of Sequoia Capital India

In a recent interview to Venture Intelligence, Shailendra Singh discussed some of the firm’s newer investments in the early stage segment including in the online payments space, the progress at a few existing portfolio companies and the active role the firm is playing in helping its portfolio companies scale and succeed in India and globally. Prior to joining the firm in 2006, Singh was a strategy consultant at Bain & Company in New York and before that, an entrepreneur in the digital media industry.

Venture Intelligence: How does Sequoia go about identifying potential early stage investments in India? Is there anything different you are doing today than, say, a couple of years back?

Shailendra Singh: There is a lot more focus on technology investing and early stage investing. In general, as you might remember a few years ago, we were doing primarily growth investing but in the past 18-odd months, we have had a very strong focus on early stage and that’s continuing. In terms of how…

PE investments in 2018 crosses $33-B to set new all-time high

Big Ticket investments in consumer apps Swiggy & Byju’s dominates year-end activity, even as investments in Core Sectors slow down
Private Equity (PE) investments in India rose to their highest ever figure of $33.1 billion in 2018 (across 720 transactions), according to data from Venture Intelligence (, a research service focused on private company financials, transactions and their valuations. While PE investments have already surpassed the previous high - $24.3 Billion across 734 deals in 2017 - in the first nine months of 2018, the mega investments in Consumer Internet & Mobile startups such as Swiggy and Byjus towards the year-end, helped the 2018 total vault by 36% year-on-year. (Note: These figures include Venture Capital investments, but exclude PE investments in Real Estate.) The year witnessed 81 PE investments worth $100 million or more (accounting for 77% of the total investment value during the period), compared to 47 such transac…

ChrysCapital and Sequoia Capital India grab two awards at APEX’19 PE-VC Awards

Mumbai, India, Feb 27, 2019: ChrysCapital and Sequoia Capital bagged two awards each as part of the “Awards for Private Equity Excellence” (APEX)event organized by Venture Intelligence. 

ChrysCapital bagged the Private Equity Fund Raise of 2018 Award (Closed $850 M Fund VIII within 4 months of launch) and the Private Equity Investor of 2018 Award (for its Exits from LiquidHub with 4x in dollar terms (within 4 years of its $53-M investment), AU Small Finance Bank with 11.5x return,  Torrent Pharma with 2.95x, City Union Bank with 2.83x, L&T Infotech with 2.56x)

Sequoia Capital India won the Early Stage VCInvestor(the firm registered 10x+ exits in Byjus Classes and SCIOInspire) and VC Fund Raise of 2018 (the firm closed an almost $700-M Fund VI).

Award Winners at APEX'19 PE-VC Awards

The event opened with a Fireside Chat with Kiran Reddy, CEO of SPI Group interviewed by his long time friend and colleague Vineeth Vijayraghavan.

Snapshots of the Awards Ceremony: (L-R) Gopal Srinivasan, …

"Leveraged stock purchase led Arvind Rao to go astray": Forbes India

Forbes India has an article on the series of events leading to the recent controversial exit of Arvind Rao, Co-founder & CEO of listed Mobile VAS firm OnMobile.

On November 23, 2010, Arvind Rao, the 53-year-old co-founder and CEO of OnMobile, bought approximately 6 lakh shares of his company from the open market, representing a little over 1 percent of the company’s total shares....At Rs 277 a share, he had to pony up nearly Rs 16.5 crore to acquire them....So he went ahead and borrowed money to buy the shares, thinking nothing of the interest it entailed or the fact that he’d need to put up nearly half his existing shareholding as collateral...OnMobile’s shares continued to fall from those levels, while Rao’s interest payments ballooned.

...Motivated by OnMobile’s growth all these years, he had never paid much attention to his salary, most of which went towards the monthly rental on his sea-facing apartment in Mumbai and his BMW 7-Series, both paid directly by the company. He reque…

Ambit tops League Table for Transaction Advisors to Private Equity deals in 2019

Ambit Corporate Finance topped theVenture Intelligence League Table for Transaction Advisor to Private Equity Transactions for the year 2019. Ambit advised PE deals worth $2.4 Billion (across 4 qualifying transactions) during the period. Citi ($1.1 Billion across 2 deals) and Avendus ($969 million across 12 deals) took the second and third spot. Edelweiss Financial Services ($758 million across 9 deals) and PwC ($708 million across 15 deals) completed the top five in 2019. 

The Venture Intelligence League Tables, the first such initiative exclusively tracking transactions involving India-based companies, are based on value of PE and M&A transactions advised by Financial and Legal Advisory firms.
Ambit Corporate Finance advised the $1.9 Billion buyout of Pipeline Infrastructure from Reliance Industriesby Brookfield Asset Management and the IFC and I Squared Capital-backedCube Highways' acquisition of Delhi-Agra Toll Road from Reliance Infrastructure (Reliance ADAG). Citi advise…