9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Bankruptcy Code, 2016 stating that part of the claim of Applicant namely M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited i.e., claim of 2.35 Crores towards damages and compensation, 2.90 Crores towards interest component, being rejected by the Resolution Professional, the applicant has sought for admission of the claim along with consequential reliefs. 2. On perusal of this application, it appears that in Para 4 of this application, it has been categorically mentioned that the Applicant has initiated arbitration proceedings against the company by making a claim of 9,87,98,800 towards short fall in upliftment of furnace oil, 2,35,00,0O0 towards damages and compensation for setting up infrastructural facilities and 7,000 towards rent on fuel and an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. As to the claims admitted by the Liquidator, he has referred to Clause 8 of the agreement dated 08.02.2010 stating that the Corporate Debtor company (SBQ Steels Private Limited) had agreed to procure a minimum quantity of 10,000 MT of furnace oil per annum from 2nd year onwards till 6th year from the date of upliftment of furnace oil, in the event of any short fall in the upliftment from 2nd year, the Corporate Debtor Company agreed to make good the loss suffered by the Applicant at the rate of 2OOO per MT of furnace oil and it will be settled on a yearly basis. 7. In view of the Clause 8 of this application, this Applicant is entitled for calculation of the payment for non-upliftment of furnace oil as per the quantity mentioned in Clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are rejected on the ground no covenant has been arrived at over these two claims. When claim itself not claimable, for the sake of giving reasons in detail, that procedure is required to be repeated. For the Applicant has failed to place any material reflecting that this Corporate Debtor is obliged to pay on these two counts, we are of the view that not giving any reasons in detail cannot become a ground for invalidating the claim already considered and rejected by the Liquidator. 11. Though the Liquidator has not clearly mentioned in many words as to why he has rejected those two claims, with regard to the component of investment made in storage facility, he has mentioned that it is not admissible based on the information available, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
