9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed is pronounced by this Bench, it will become functus officio as to the adjudication already given, therefore, if at all this applicant being aggrieved of the order dated 18.09.2018, the applicant should have raised it's grievances before the Hon'ble Appellate Authority, that has not been done. As long as the order dated 18.09.2018 is not reversed, this Bench cannot go back to say that as to which invoice is correct or which collection memo is incorrect, whose version is correct or whose version is incorrect because it is not open to this Bench reopen the order dated 18.09.2018 for two reasons - one, the impugned order is based on the statement made by the applicant before the Honourable NCLAT and two, the invoices the applicant produced before the RP are not the invoices as detailed in the original petition. This fact is not even rebutted by the applicant. In any event the Resolution Plan in this case was already approved by this Bench and it is in implementation. Application dismissed. - MA/677/2018 In CP/616/IB/CB/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2019 - MR B.S.V. PRAKASH KUMAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR S. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its claim of ₹ 2,39,33,935 shown in the Original Petition was admitted on 15.11.2017 to ₹ 2,173. 3. When we have looked back into the main Company Petition, it is apparent on record that this Bench admitted this Company Petition basing on the computation shown in the table below: Sl. No. Date Invoice No. Description of goods Quantity Rate Per Total Amount in Rs. 1. 16-Nov-13 TTC/HSS/NOV-13/12 Cost of Coal lifted by you of our High Seas Sales 528.44 MT 3,838.00 MT 20,28,681.00 2. 16-Nov-13 TTC/DN.NOV13/002 Debit Note - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MT 15,62,840.00 10. 04-Feb-14 TTC/HSS/FEB-14/01 Cost of Coal lifted by you of our High Seas Sales 90.800 MT 4,872.00 MT 4,86,226.00 Total Amount 2,69,75,480.00 Less Received Amount 30,41,545.00 Outstanding Amount 2,39,33,935.00 4. In the above chart, it is shown that these claims were raised basing on invoices raised from 16.11.2013 to 01.02.2014 for the amount aggregating to ₹ 2,39,33,935, thereafter when the admission order was assailed by the Promoter-Directors of the Corporate Debtor before the Hon'ble NCLAT, the Hon'ble NCLAT dismissed the appeal on 23.01.2018 with an observation which is mentioned as below: 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A/362/IB/2018 and MA/312/IB/2018 in MA/100/IB/2018, the claim of this Operational Creditor is not maintainable because the records (the details in the main company petition) of the Corporate Debtor the claim is against the invoices details dated from 16.11.2013 to 01.02.2014. 6. On hearing the submissions of either side in the MAs aforementioned, this Bench on 18.09.2018 passed an order giving directions to the Applicant to submit the invoices to the RP against the claim raised in the Original Company Petition. For the sake of clarification, we hereby reproduce the directions given in the order dated 18.09.2018, which is as follows: The PCS representing the OC has stated that they had copy of the invoices and the firm is directed to produce the invoices to the RP and the CD is directed to make the payment for the same without insisting on a bank guarantee and for depositing the amount in an escrow account. It is seen that the issue regarding the customs classification and tariff are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and if the Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict is in favour of the CD the same may be passed on to the Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e construed as invoices. The Applicant even specified the respective invoice numbers. But the applicant filed collection memos so as to impress upon this Bench to make us believe that invoices are in respect to the collection memos filed in the main Company Petition. Perhaps by that time when clarificatory order was passed, this Bench must have been under the belief that this Applicant would produce invoices as reflected in the table that has been filed in the main Company Petition. Interesting part is, this applicant, on the direction given by this Bench in the order dated 18.09.2018, instead of filing the invoices dated from 16.11.2013 to 01.02.2014, it has filed invoices dated 04.11.2013, which is not part of the claim made in the original company petition. When a direction was given by this Bench to file invoice copies reflecting the numbers and dates mentioned in the original company petition, how could this applicant today raise contention saying since this Bench admitted this case based on the claim mentioned in the original petition, the Corporate debtor shall reflect the same claim in the liabilities of the corporate debtor disregarding the fact of the applicant not produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
