9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 340 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of section 9 application - time barred claims or not - HELD THAT - Undeniably the purchase orders have been placed by the Corporate Debtor and the goods have been supplied by the Petitioner. Invoices have been raised by the Petitioner, part payment have also made by the Corporate Debtor and there is also a confirmation of balance in the shape of statement of accounts, which is duly acknowledged and signed by the authorised signatory of the Corporate Debtor. Further, there is evidence to prove the supply of the material to the Corporate Debtor and it has also availed ITC of GST on the goods received by it. Based on these facts, the Adjudicating Authority has come to a conclusion, that all the issues raised by the Corporate Debtor have been duly noted and findings have been returned on all the issues raised in the Corporate Debtor, basis the documentary evidence available with it. After hearing both the parties the Adjudicating Authority has come to a conclusion that the petition is admissible and accordingly it has passed the Section 9 proceedings for CIRP against the Corporate Debtor namely, M/s Kevin Ventures LLP. The Adjudicating Authority has on the basis of all the documents come to a conclusion that CIRP proceedings should be initiated against the Corporate Debtor under Section 9 of the Code, and for the above-mentioned reasons, there are no error in the findings. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the filing of appeal under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Suspended Designated Partner of the Corporate Debtor against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. Details of Judgment: Issue 1: Time Barred Petition The Appellant claimed that the petition was time-barred, but the Adjudicating Authority found that it was filed within the limitation period based on the confirmation of accounts dated 15.10.2019. The Authority concluded that there was a debt exceeding Rs.1 Crore, which had not been paid, and dismissed the time-barred claim. Issue 2: Alleged Lack of Personal Awareness The Appellant argued that the Director of the Respondent who filed the petition was not personally aware of the facts due to joining the company after the alleged purchase order and tax invoices. However, the Authority deemed this argument specious as the Director was an authorized representative. Issue 3: Pre-existing Dispute The Appellant claimed a pre-existing dispute regarding damaged goods and losses due to faulty packing. However, no documentary evidence was presented to support this claim, and the Adjudicating Authority found the statement of account to be authentic without any demur. Issue 4: Contradictions and Misleading Statements The Corporate Debtor denied the confirmation of accounts by Mr. Rajeev Shah, but the Authority noted that the additional affidavit filed by the Debtor contained the same signature and seal. The Authority found the Debtor's submission misleading and away from the facts. Issue 5: Trade Transaction Arrangement The Corporate Debtor alleged an arrangement with the Operational Creditor where invoices were drawn without actual trade transactions. However, the Authority found this claim contradictory, especially considering the details provided regarding disputes over goods packaging. Conclusion: After considering all the arguments and evidence, the Adjudicating Authority concluded that the Corporate Debtor should be admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Code. The Authority found no errors in its findings and dismissed the Company Appeal, affirming the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment based on the issues involved, highlighting the key arguments and conclusions reached by the Adjudicating Authority.
|
