9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I B Code') for initiation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' of the respondent - M/s. Rattan India Power Ltd. Having noticed that there is an 'existence of dispute' between the parties, the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi Bench by the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2017 rejected the application No. (IB) -367(ND)/2017. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the defects as were pointed out has already been rectified. After rectification of the defects, there was no dispute since 30th June, 2016. 3. From the record, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd occurring in Section 8(2)(a) must be read as or keeping in mind the legislative intent and the fact that an anomalous situation would arise if it is not read as or . If read as and , disputes would only stave off the bankruptcy process if they are already pending in a suit or arbitration proceedings and not otherwise. This would lead to great hardship; in that a dispute may arise a few days before triggering of the insolvency process, in which case, though a dispute may exist, there is no time to approach either an arbitral tribunal or a court. Further, given the fact that long limitation periods are allowed, where disputes may arise and do not reach an arbitral tribunal or a court for upto three years, such persons would be outside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the dispute is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
