9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ours to keep the corporate debtor alive. In fact, the I B Code prohibits and discourages recovery in several ways. Petition dismissed. - C.P. (IB) No. 282/9/NCLT/AHM/2019 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2019 - MS. MANORAMA KUMARI, MEMBER (J). For The Applicant : Advocate Natasha Dhruman Shah For The Respondent : Advocate Mr Sharvil Majmudar and Arpit Singhvi ORDER 1. That, the instant application is filed by Mr. Sanjay Barot, authorised representative of applicant/operational creditor M/s. SBF Pharma, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as the Code ] read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy (Application to Adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and consumed by the respondent. However, after several reminders, the applicant did not receive any payment. That, the applicant filed two criminal complaints against the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the respondent made payment of ₹ 19,40,449/-. That, despite several oral and written reminders, the respondent did not clear the outstanding. Therefore, the applicant was constrained to issue demand notice dated 08.02.2019 under the provisions of IB Code which came to be served on the respondent on 18.02.2019. 5. Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent company filed statement of objections and affidavit in reply inter alia stating that the respondent had made payment of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the year 2018, number of business transactions took place between the applicant and respondent involving sizable amount which goes on to show that the applicant and respondent were in good business terms. Even the reminder letter dated 26.12.2018 issued by the respondent calling upon the applicant to clear the overdue payment of ₹ 7.50 lakhs and reply of the respondent dated 28th February, 2019 highlights the cordial business relations prevailed between the applicant and respondent. It is an admitted fact that the respondent through its advocate vide reply dated 28.02.2018 had sent a demand draft of ₹ 7.50 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the claim and dues of the applicant. On receipt of such reply dated 28.02.2019, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of value for a stakeholder or a set of stakeholders, such as creditors and to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests. The first order objective is resolution . The second order objective is maximisation of value of assets of the corporate debtor and the third order objective is promoting entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balancing the interests. This order of objective is sacrosanct. 9. In the matter of Arcelormittal India (P.) Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that the corporate debtor consists of several employees and workmen whose daily bread is dependent on the outcome of the CIRP. If there is a resolution applicant who can continue to run t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
