2023 (8) TMI 485 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Threshold amount limit for filing application u/s 9 of IBC - Section 10A of IBC - Appellant/Corporate Debtor did not appear before the Adjudicating Authority inspite of several opportunities and inspite of specific notice - HELD THAT - When the Corporate Debtor inspite of ample opportunities does not appear and file any defence, such Corporate Debtor cannot be allowed to raise factual issues and question the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. It is clear that the Corporate Debtor sent an e-mail that he wants to settle the matter and on that ground the matter was adjourned. The Adjudicating Authority called the Corporate Debtor to appear and issued notice, which was duly served. The counsel for the Corporate Debtor appeared and even then he did not file any reply - such Corporate Debtor cannot be allowed to now raise factual issue and contend that the claim was less than Rs.1 Crore. On such conduct of the Corporate Debtor this Appellate Tribunal is not inclined to grant any indulgence or consider any submission on the facts - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are delay in filing the appeal, admission of Section 9 Application by the Adjudicating Authority, challenge to the order by the Appellant regarding the amount claimed, interest levied, and application being barred by Section 10A.

Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was delayed by 14 days due to the late receipt of the order by the Appellant. The reason for the delay was considered sufficient, and the delay was condoned after hearing the counsel for the Appellant.

Admission of Section 9 Application:
The Adjudicating Authority admitted the Section 9 Application filed by the Operational Creditor for an amount of Rs.1,21,73,639/- as operational debt. Despite multiple opportunities given to the Corporate Debtor to file a reply, they did not appear before the Authority, leading to the admission of the application.

Challenge to the Order by the Appellant:
The Counsel for the Appellant challenged the order on grounds that the claimed amount was less than the threshold, the application was barred by Section 10A, and interest levied was improper. The Counsel referred to legal notices and discrepancies in the ledger entries regarding payments made.

Decision and Analysis:
The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the Appellant and examined the record. It noted the observations made by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the Corporate Debtor's failure to appear despite notices and opportunities given. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor's conduct of not appearing and not filing a reply precluded them from raising factual issues at a later stage.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the Corporate Debtor's repeated non-appearance and failure to respond to notices and opportunities provided by the Adjudicating Authority prevented them from challenging the findings. The Tribunal declined to grant any indulgence based on the Corporate Debtor's conduct and upheld the decision to admit the Section 9 Application.