9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1767 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - pre-existing dispute or not - Section 9 of I B Code - HELD THAT - Admittedly, Appellant Roma Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd. has not supplied the goods nor provided any services to Respondent- A.S. Iron Steel (I) Pvt. Ltd. It advanced payment of ₹ 74,32,326/- to Respondent for supply of goods. In view of the aforesaid fact, the payment cannot be treated to be an Operational Debt and the application under Section 9 filed by the Appellant was not maintainable. Accordingly, no relief can be granted. The order passed by this Appellate Tribunal or Adjudicating Authority will not come in the way of Appellant to moved before the court of Competent Jurisdiction for appropriate relief - appeal dismissed.
Issues: Application under Section 9 of I&B Code rejected; Pre-existing dispute; Operational Debt determination
The judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi involved the rejection of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against a Corporate Debtor, M/s A.S. Iron & Steel (I) Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant claimed to have paid ?74,32,326 for goods that were not supplied, arguing the absence of a pre-existing dispute. The Appellant contended that they made the payment for goods that were not supplied by the Corporate Debtor, thus initiating the Section 9 application. The Respondent, representing the Corporate Debtor, argued that the goods were supplied back in 2014, raising a limitation defense. However, the Tribunal did not delve into the question of whether the goods were supplied, focusing instead on the lack of goods or services provided by the Appellant to the Respondent. It was established that the Appellant, Roma Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd., did not supply any goods or services to the Respondent but had made an advance payment of ?74,32,326 for goods. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that this payment did not qualify as an 'Operational Debt,' rendering the Section 9 application non-maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal clarified that its order did not prevent the Appellant from seeking appropriate relief in the court of Competent Jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed with the mentioned observations, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|
