Skip to main content

Legal Capsule by LexCounsel


LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CANNOT TRIGGER INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS

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.

Conclusion:

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
(sshikha@lexcounsel.in)

Popular posts from this blog

EY Tops League Table for Transaction Advisors to M&A deals in 24

Moelis & Company & PwC claim the No.2 & No.3 slots Ernst & Young  (EY) topped the Venture Intelligence League Table for Transaction Advisor to M&A Deals   during 2024, advising 34 deals worth $4.1 Billion. Moelis & Company stood second advising 2 deals worth $3.9 billion. PwC followed with 18 deals worth $3.3 billion. Citi ($2.5 billion across 1 deal) and Advay Capital ($2.3 billion across 1 deal) completed the top five. Among the largest M&A deals in 2024, Citi  advised $2.5 Billion acquisition of the Indian business of American Tower Corporation by Brookfield , Advay Capital and Moelis & Company advised the $2.3 Billion acquisition of Care Hospitals by Aster DM Healthcare . Jefferies & Co., JP Morgan and Moelis & Company advised the $1.6 Billion acquisition of Bharat Serums & Vaccines by Mankind Pharma.  Among the other notable M&A deals in Q4 2024, EY advised the $685 million acquisition of ITD Cementation ...

Morgan Stanley tops League Table for Transaction Advisors to M&A deals in 2020

Morgan Stanley , which advised the $10.1 Billion strategic investment by Facebook and Google into Reliance Industries' telecom arm Jio platforms (among other Private Equity investments in the company), topped the Venture Intelligence League Table for Transaction Advisor to M&A Deals for 2020. Ambit Corporate Finance - which advised 3 deals worth $4.0 Billion, including Brookfield's $3.7 Billion acquisition of Reliance Tower Infrastructure Trust -  took the second spot. JM Financial ($3.7 Billion across 5 deals), Metta Capital ($3.4 Billion across 3 deals) and ICICI Securities ($3.4 Billion across 2 deals) - all of whom (along with Citi) are advisors to the $3.4 Billion acquisition of Future Group's retail related ventures by Reliance Retail, announced in August - completed the top five. The  Venture Intelligence League Tables , the first such initiative exclusively tracking transactions involving India-based companies, are based on the value of PE and M&A tra...

Everything you wanted to know (and some things you didn't care to know) about ChrysCapital's Ashish Dhawan

New Delhi-based private equity fund ChrysCapital is vastly different from its former avatar, Chrysalis Capital. While Chrysalis began life (in Mumbai) as an venture capital firm focussed on start-up investments, today's ChrysCapital is best know for its late-stage investments (often in already public companies). The fascinating part of this transformation is that one of the fund's original partners - Senior Managing Director Ashish Dhawan - has been firmly in the driver's seat throughout the process. It's a story that needed to be told. As a cover story. Kudos to Business Today for telling it first. Thankfully, unlike the glowing profiles that BT is famous for - including the one featuring infamous stock brocker Harshad Mehta with his Lexus on the cover - this one has a lot of facts. Some well known. And others less so. That ChrysCapital's first fund would have been a disaster but for the pioneering investment in Raman Roy founded BPO firm Spectramind i...

Why did Sony Entertainment Television's CEO quit?

Businessworld has a cover story on the corporate battle that resulted in Kunal Dasgupta, the CEO of Multi Screen Media (formerly Sony Entertainment Television), quitting just a few months before his contract was due to end. Dasgupta’s abrupt exit was the culmination of six years of tension between majority shareholder Sony Pictures Television International (SPTI) that owns 61 per cent of MSM, on one hand, and Atlas Equifinn on the other, which is a consortium of Indian shareholders (Singapore-based Rakesh Aggarwal, World Media Group director Sudesh Iyer, Shemaroo Entertainment Managing Director Raman Maroo, MobiApps Holding’s Jayesh Parekh, B.R. Sule, Sushil Shergil and actor Jackie Shroff ) holding 32 per cent. Capital Japan and some financial institutions own the rest 7 per cent. And of course, the third protagonist is Dasgupta, who walked a tightrope and managed to keep his job for over 14 years despite the fact that neither group of shareholders was too happy with him. Very little...

APEX VC Awards: Chiratae Ventures, Blume Ventures, Elevation Capital, Stride Ventures & Alteria Capital judged best funds of 2021

Press Release Elevation Capital , Chiratae Ventures , Blume Ventures , Stride Ventures and Alteria Capital were voted the top Venture Capital investors in India during 2021. The Venture Intelligence “Awards for Private Equity Excellence” (APEX) is dedicated to celebrating the best that the Indian Private Equity & Venture Capital industry has to offer. "VCs exist because Entrepreneurs exist and disrupt the ecosystem by creating new businesses. We are very excited to be part of the secular trend of tech disruption that would power India’s journey towards $ 10 Trillion economy over the next decade," said  T C Meenakshi Sundaram, Founder & Vice Chairman, Chiratae Ventures , winner of " VC Fund raise of the Year " award.  " We wish to thank all our entrepreneurs who have chosen to take funding from Chiratae Ventures and investors who have backed us with funds over the past 15 years in this journey.  Congratulations to the entire Chiratae Ventures team and ...