AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
12.04.2023: Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This is an appeal against the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Chandigarh) by which order the application filed by the Appellant seeking direction for admitting the claim of the Appellant as Financial Creditor of Zenica Cars Pvt. Ltd. has been rejected.
The Appellant entered into Master Lease Agreement, which has been brought on the record (at page-55 of the Appeal Paper Book) for leasing out the vehicles to the Corporate Debtor. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to clause 2.9 which is to the following effects:-
2.9 Rental:
2.9.1In consideration of the Lease of the Vehicle and/or availing of Fleet Management Services from the Lessor, the Lessee agrees to pay the Lessor regularly and punctually without any abatements or deductions (except statutory deductions which the Lessee is required to deduct under applicable laws) (i) Lease Rental and/or (ii) Fleet management Fees, on their respective due dates, as more specifically mentioned in the Schedule irrespective of whether the Vehicle has been put to use or not or is under repairs maintenance or for replacement for any period whatsoever.
2.9.2Lease Rental for the Lease of the Vehicle during the Lease Term may be fixed i.e. it shall remain unchanged during the Lease Term or variable as may be set out in the Schedule. The Lessee shall be required to indicate its preference in the VRO”.
He further submits that there was option for purchase of the vehicle at 55% of the residual value which option was there and hence the nature of the lease is a financial lease.
Adjudicating Authority, after hearing, rejected the Application holding that the Appellant has failed to prove financial debt.
We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel of the Appellant and perused the records. The Master Lease Agreement by which the vehicles were leased, on rental and right to purchase the vehicles on residual value of 55% does not change the nature of the Master Lease Agreement which was a lease agreement on rental. In no manner, the said Master Lease Agreement can be read as financial debt. There is no disbursement for time value of any, as required under Section 5(8) of the Code.
We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the claim of the application of the Appellant claiming to be a financial debt. We, thus, do not find any error in the impugned order.
The appeal is dismissed.