9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim as per law, the impugned action of Resolution Professional does not warrant any interference by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the Applicant can be granted liberty to file necessary documents as sought for by the Resolution Professional so as to reconsider the issue. The Applicant is granted liberty to file necessary documents as sought by the Resolution Professional to substantiate its claims within a period of one week from receipt of the copy of the order - Application disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity and gave its consent to pass an order/award in terms and conditions incorporated in the 'Memorandum of Settlement'. The Corporate Debtor in compliance to the settlement paid four monthly instalments of ₹ 50,000 totalling to ₹ 2,00,000/-. In respect to the instalment paid by the Corporate Debtor the Applicant/Compliant vide its letter dated 24.04.2012 has sought appropriation of ₹ 5,000/- towards payment of interest and ₹ 1,95,000/- towards principle. Apart from the payments made by the Corporate Debtor in four instalments of ₹ 50,000/- each totalling to ₹ 2,00,000/- the Corporate Debtor have failed make further payment towards its admitted debt and liability. (5) It is further stated that the Applicant/Claimant was constrained to file Execution Petition against the Corporate Debtor and the Directors in Ex. No. 2742/2012. On 14.02.2019 the ROC has filed a complaint against the Company i.e., M/s. Innovative Studios Pvt. Ltd. And it's Directors before the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore in PCR. No. 9/19 registered as SPL. C.C. No. 404/2019 for the commission of offences of concocting false, fictitious & bogus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,720/- amounting to ₹ 39,71,760/- plus interest and the different cheques issued by the Corporate Debtor and further that the two claims have no nexus to one another and each one is an independent claim and the Resolution Professional has intentionally alleged it to be a multiple claim. (8) It is further stated that the Resolution Professional has grossly erred in not applying the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Ichharam allias Brijram, 1974 AIR 471, 1974 SCR (2) 544 and Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors. Vs. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad)Dead) through Lrs. & Ors., [ (2005) 11 SCC 314] wherein it was categorically held that judicial admissions by themselves can be made the foundations of the rights of the parties and admissions in the pleadings are admissible proprio vigore against the make thereof. The Resolution Professional has erred in rejecting the claim of the Applicant/Claimant without assigning any reason/explanation for not enforcing the judicial order passed by the Court of the Lok Adalat in furtherance to the settlement entered by the Corporate Debtor and the consent given by the Corporate Debtor before the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice against the Applicant/Claimant if the claim of the Applicant/Claimant is not considered. (4) It is pertinent to note that plain reading of Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 provides that when a cheque is issued by any person there is presumption that the same was issued in discharge of legal debt and the Hon'ble Apex Court has fortified the said prescribed law in plethora of precedents laid down by it. The Resolution Professional has rejected the claim of the Applicant/Claimant due to various reasons viz. Copy of contractual agreement between Innovative and Madhu Steel Corporation; copies of the Purchase Order issued by Innovative or any other request from Innovative for delivery of materials etc. (5) It is stated that the Resolution Professional erred in demanding the contractual agreement between the Corporate Debtor and Madhu Steel Corporation and not appreciating the glaring fact that the Corporate Debtor has not only acknowledged the receipt of the materials under the 4 credit bills. The Resolution Professional erred in not appreciating that it is not the case of the Corporate Debtor that is was appointed as an agent of the claimant an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to fulfil the duties of the Respondent of verification of claims and determination of amount of claims envisaged under Regulation 13 and Regulation 14 of the IBBI Regulation 2016, the Respondent has called for the certain document information vide notice dated 14.07.2019. The Respondent/RP has not received the requisite documents and information from the Applicant so far. 5. Heard, Ms. Asmita Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Shri Balady Shekar Shetty, learned Resolution Professional/Respondent and Shri Susheel Shankar, learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and extant provisions of the Rules. 6. In pursuant to the claim made by the Applicant, in I.A. No. 467 of 2019 the RP issued a letter dated 14.07.2019 bearing Ref : IP/IS/2019-20/OC-06 addressed to Sri Vijay Prakash Gupta which reads as under : "However, you have responded regarding the matter on 04th July, 2019 without providing any of the documents to support your claim. So I regret to inform that I am unable to determine any of your claims mentioned above in the reference or in the body of the letter for the supplies made by Madhu Stee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
