9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 674 - AT - IBCChallenge to proceeding under Section 9 of I B Code of 2016 - direction to Respondent to settle the balance claim of the Petitioner/Appellant herein within three months - HELD THAT - The appellant has disputed the quantification of the amount payable, by the respondent and has contended that, the full amount as per the claim raised under Section 8 demand notice under I B Code, 2016 has not been remitted and that the amount deposited is on the basis of the order of MSEFC dated 13.09.2021, which does not appropriately satisfy the demand raised by the appellant in Section 8 demand notice. Since there is a dispute in respect of the size of the claim between the Appellant and the Respondent, and if the Appellant feels that the directions given by the Hon ble NCLT, in its order dated 31.03.2021 to the respondent to settle the claim of the Appellant within three months has not been complied with, the Appellant can very well approach the Ld. NCLT with an appropriate application to redress his grievances including determination of the amount that needs to be paid by the Respondent for which the Ld. NCLT has already granted liberty. Since the issue involves consideration of evidence and facts, and also scrutiny of documents to arrive at the balance amount to be paid to the Appellant and also consideration of the order dated 13.09.2021 of MSEFC, Chennai Region, it is best done at the level of Hon ble NCLT, Bengaluru Bench, which has itself left it open for the Appellant to re-approach it, to raise his grievances if, he is dissatisfied with the amount, which has been paid by the Respondent - The issue of determination of amount is still left wide open to be decided by the Hon ble NCLT. The appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .
Issues:
Challenge to Impugned Order under Section 9 of I & B Code of 2016 Application for additional documents under NCLAT Rules 2016 Dispute over amount payable and compliance with NCLT directions Analysis: Challenge to Impugned Order under Section 9 of I & B Code of 2016: The Appellant, an operational creditor, challenged the Impugned Order rendered in CP(IB) No. 33/BB/2021, where the Adjudicating Authority held that the corporate debtor was not prima facie insolvent as part of the claim had been paid, leaving a balance of approximately Rs. 33 Lakhs claimed as interest. The Authority directed the Respondent to settle the balance claim within three months, failing which the Appellant could approach the Authority again. The NCLT dismissed the Section 9 application, leading to the appeal. The Respondent argued that the Appellant did not approach the Tribunal with clean hands, as the Appellant had simultaneously sought recovery through MSEFC under the MSME Act. The Respondent had remitted an amount and settled the matter as per the NCLT's directions and MSEFC's order dated 13.09.2021. Application for additional documents under NCLAT Rules 2016: During the appeal, the Respondent filed an application under Rule 11 read with Rule 31 of NCLAT Rules 2016 to include additional documents, specifically the order from MSEFC, Chennai Region, in a separate proceeding. This application was made to provide additional evidence regarding the settlement of the claim and the actions taken by the Respondent in compliance with previous orders. Dispute over amount payable and compliance with NCLT directions: The Appellant disputed the amount paid by the Respondent, arguing that the full claim amount under the Section 8 demand notice had not been remitted. The Respondent contended that the amount remitted was in accordance with the NCLT's order and MSEFC's decision. As there was a disagreement on the amount payable, the Tribunal suggested that the Appellant could approach the NCLT to resolve the dispute and determine the correct amount to be paid. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue required a detailed examination of evidence and documents, including the MSEFC's order dated 13.09.2021, which was best handled by the NCLT. The appeal was dismissed, granting the Appellant liberty to approach the NCLT to address any grievances regarding the payment amount. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that while the Appellant had the liberty to seek redressal from the NCLT regarding the disputed amount, the appeal lacked merit in its current form.
|
