NCLT JUDGEMENT ON RULE 5,6 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY (APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY) RULES, 2016 AND SECTION 4, 8, 8(1), 8(2), 9, 9(3)(B), 9(5), 9(5)(I)(A), 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 31(1), 33OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016


Tech India Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0043

NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") read with Rule 6 of the IBC, 2016 initiate corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of Corporate Debtor. While allowing the application NCLT held that when we shall consider the case in hand then we are of the considered view that since it is specifically mentioned in Section 8(2) of the Code that within ten days from the date of the receipt of the demand notice, the corporate-debtor is required to bring to the notice of the operational-creditor, the existence of dispute or the documents regarding the payment of debt, therefore, we have no option, but to hold that since the corporate-debtor fails to give the reply of the demand notice and raised the disputes, hence after his appearance in response to the notice, he cannot raise it by filing the reply to the application, filed on behalf of the operational-creditor and this has also been held by another NCLT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Jai Laxmi Traders v M/s. Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. IB-2184/(ND)/2019. Since, no dispute has been raised in pursuance of the demand notice issued under Section 8(1) of IBC, 2016, therefore, in our considered view, any dispute raised after the appearance of the respondent in pursuance to summons issued after filing the main application is not liable to be accepted. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that in view of Section 9(5)(i)(a) since the application is complete, the invoice for notice of the payment to the Corporate Debtor has been delivered by the Operational Creditor, there is no payment of unpaid operational debt, which is more than Rs.1 Lakh, which is the minimum threshold U/S 4 of the Code for initiating a proceeding U/S 9 of the Code and no notice of dispute as required U/S 8(2) of the Code is raised by Corporate Debtor and there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against the Resolution Professional. Therefore, we think it is proper to admit the application.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 8, 9, 13(1)(B), 13(1)(C), 14, 14(1), 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31(1), 33 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016

Image
Maloo Bhatt And Co. Vs. Pet Metal Private Limited, (2020) 08 NCLT CK 0024 NCLT allowed the Application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code,2016, to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor for the amount of debt related to invoice raised for audit fees and other professional work. While allowing the appeal NCLT held that the amount of debt is more than Rs. 1 lacs which is not barred by law of limitation. The said amount has not been paid and no plausible defence has been put forward by Corporate Debtor. The Applicant has also provided MCA Data of the Corporate Debtor. The application is otherwise complete and defect free. It is also noted that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the IRP whose consent is on record. Hence, he can be appointed to conduct Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Accordingly, we admit this application and order.
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 133, 230, 231, 232 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND RULE 3, 3(2) OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016

Image
Kalyankari Suppliers Private Limited And Ors Vs. Shiv Coal Benification And Power Private Limited, (2020) 05 NCLT CK 0015 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 230 to 232 read with Companies (Arrangements, Compromises and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 in relation to Scheme of Amalgamation (For brevity "Scheme") proposed between the Applicants. While allowing the application NCLT held that taking into consideration the application and the documents filed herewith, we propose to issue the directions with respect to calling, convening and holding the meeting of Equity Shareholders, Partners, secured and unsecured creditors or dispensing the same.
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 8, 8(1), 8(2), 9, 9(5)(1), 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 31(1), 33 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016

Image
Centuary Road Transport Pvt. Ltd Vs. Tyson Retail Services Pvt. Ltd, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0044 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of the IB Code for initiation of the CIRP of Corporate Debtor.   While allowing the application NCLT held that in view of Section 8, after the receiving of the demand notice delivered under Section 8(1) of the IB Code the Corporate Debtor is required to send the reply to demand notice or raised the pre-existing dispute or show the documents regarding the payment of the unpaid debt but here as we noticed that the Corporate Debtor has neither raised the pre-existing dispute nor filed any document to show that the amount has been paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. If we shall consider the case in hand in the light of aforesaid provision then we find that herein the case in hand neither pre-existing dispute is raised nor payment of the unpaid Operation Debt is made, the application is complete and the ...
Read more