9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s/was issued on the basis of the authority letter. In the result, the application so filed gets vitiated. The petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed - Petition dismissed. - C. P. No. (IB) 658/9/NCLT/AHM/2019 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2021 - Manorama Kumari, Member (J) And Chockalingam Thirunavukkarasu, Member (T) For the Appellant : Jaimin Dave , Advocate For the Respondents : Ashutosh Gupta and Prashant Kumar Sharma, Advocates ORDER Manorama Kumari, Member (J) 1. Mr. Anandkumar Agarwal, partner, being authorised signatory, on behalf of M/s. Sajan Kumar Satish Kumar filed this Petition under Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as the Code ] read with Rule 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the corporate debtor has never raised any dispute or demur with respect to the quality of the products supplied by the applicant. That, the total debt due and payable by the corporate debtor is ₹ 86,60,361/- (Rupees eighty-six lacs sixty thousand three hundred sixty-one only) which include interest amount of ₹ 12,33,775/- (Rupees twelve lacs thirty-three thousand seven hundred seventy-five only) charged at the rate of 12% per annum upto 31.05.2019. That, the default occurred on 7th June, 2018. 6. The applicant/operational creditor has stated that having failed to receive the operational debt due and payable by the corporate debtor, the applicant was compelled to issue demand notice under section 8 of the I B Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Budge Project which came to be terminated on 02.11.2018; that, the cheques were provided as a security cheque for the project of the applicant situated at IOCL Budge and the applicant has used it to extract money from the respondent; that, the respondent company is a going concern, earning profit and giving employment to approx. 1500 people. During pendency of the matter additional documents were also filed by the respondent as well as by the applicant as rebuttal. By filing additional documents, respondent brought to the notice about the pre-existing dispute. Findings: 9. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the documents annexed to the application/reply. 10. Before dealing with the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty letter is/was executed, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the demand notice is/was issued on the basis of the authority letter. In the result, the application so filed gets vitiated. That apart, a letter of authorisation being a document given to the recipient as a proof that he/she is empowered to perform an act on behalf of someone else, it should invariably include date of issuance, name and identity proof of the person to whom such authority is given, validity period of such document and specific action to be performed by the person to whom authorisation has been given. In absence of such details, such document loses its sanctity. 13. Under the facts and circumstances and as discussed above the petition is not maintai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
