9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Shounak Mitra and Zulfiqar Ali Al Quaderi, Advs. ORDER Per Jinan K.R., Member (J) This is an application filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 6(1) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Rules), 2016 for initiating insolvency resolution process against the Respondent/Corporate Debtor namely Fabworth Promoters Private Limited. 2. The petitioner alleged that Chris Garrod Global India Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated in India as a subsidiary of the company with the name and style of Chris Garrod Global Ltd. at London and that petitioner carrying business of procurement and consultancy and project management consultancy in line with the nature of business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity we are not going into the details of the objections raised on the side of the respondents. 5. Admittedly petitioner is the subsidiary company of M/s Chris Garrod Global Ltd., London. It is also admitted that the petitioner filed this petition not based on any contract entered into between petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner has no case that this petition was filed for and on behalf of the holding company or based on any debt assigned to it. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no contractual relationship between the respondent and therefore petitioner cannot file this petition as an operational creditor. Such a contention seems to have raised by the respondent in the reply notice send to the petitioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. The above referred definition not at all suit to the petitioner herein. The alleged debt is not a debt found due to the petitioner but due to its holding company namely M/s. Chris Garrod Global Limited at London. The resolution Annexure A was passed by the directors of the petitioner s company and not passed by the holding company. No documents produced to prove that the debt due to the holding company was legally assigned to the petitioner by the holding company. Therefore, it appears to us that petitioner could not be regarded as an operational creditor comes under the purview of S.5 (20) of I B code, 2016. 8. Then the next question is whether the debt claimed by the petitioner is an operational debt as defined under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in case of non-confirmation of booking within one year the amount is required to be refunded without interest . Since the booking was not confirmed as stipulated in the receipt the appellant filed petition under section 9 of I B Code, 2016 before the NCLT, Delhi. The Hon ble Principle Bench rejected the petition holding that the appellant is not an Operational Creditor as defined under sub-section (20) read with sub-section (21) of Section 5 of the I B Code 2016 . Aggrieved by the order of rejection the appellant filed appeal before the NCALT. The Hon bale NCALT dismissed the appeal confirming the order of rejection. It is good to read paras 3 6 of the above referred judgment. It read as follows:- Para. 3:- We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
