9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une, 2016 raised dispute about ineligibility of banker whose bank guarantee was given by the Appellant and which was not in accordance with the agreement. There is nothing on the record that the Appellant, thereafter, took correctional measure and communicated it to the ‘Corporate Debtor’. From the aforesaid facts, it appears that there is existence of dispute since 2016 and the Appellant also granted time to the Respondent 60 days by their notice dated 5th May, 2017, but application under Section 9 was filed prior to the said period. For the reason aforesaid, no interference is called for against the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 97 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2018 - Mr S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited Vs. Uttam Galva Metallics Limited Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 96 of 2017 decided on 17th July, 2017. 3. The aforesaid judgment in Macquarie Bank Limited (Supra) was reversed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on the basis of decision in Macquarie Bank Ltd. vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. reported in AIR 2018 SC 498. 4. The Appellant also challenged the earlier judgment of this Appellate Tribunal dated 31st July, 2017 before the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 23504 of 2017. The Hon ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 16th May, 2018, set aside the order dated 31st July, 2017, in view of the findings in Macquarie Bank Ltd. vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. and remitted the matter to thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot acceptable as per the Reserve Bank of India Regulations. In this background, the Corporate Debtor returned the original guarantee to the Appellant- ( Operational Creditor ) with a request to furnish the guarantee from a commercial Bank. The Appellant was informed that the Corporate Debtor has apprised Mr. Wilbers about all these issues and, therefore, the Corporate Debtor was asked for two months extension to make the payment for hot mill. It was intimated that if there were any issues at end of the Appellant to accede to the demand of the Corporate Debtor , the same could have been informed to the Corporate Debtor . It was specifically mentioned that hasty decision to dispatch off electrical panels and switch cabinets would res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to time in the application under Section 9 (Form-5). Some invoices relate to purchase orders dated 13th May, 2014. 13. From the record we find that the Appellant issued a statutory demand notice for payment of Euro 4,472,638.99 under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. 14. Another notice was issued by the Appellant through lawyer on 5th May, 2017 for failure to adhere to the payment obligations arising under the supply contract dated 9th November, 2015 and amended agreement dated 27th September, 2016. 15. There is another legal notice given by the Appellant on 12th April, 2017 whish relates to supply contract dated 9th November, 2015 and amended agreement dated 27th September, 2016. 16. By notice dated 5th May, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
