9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code') seeking following directions against Mr. Trupal Kumar Patel ('Respondent'), Resolution Professional of Alcock Ashdown (Gujarat) Ltd. ('Corporate Applicant'): i. That this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may be pleased to allow the present application, in the interest of justice; ii. That this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may be pleased to direct the Respondent to admit the claim of the applicant for an amount of Rs. 21,79,88,328.04 including interest, as operational creditor as quantified by Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar vide judgment and decree dated 01.01.2016 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 214 of 1999, in the interest of justice; iii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounter claim of Rs. 37,32,273/-. The said suit was allowed vide decree dated 19.12.2015 with a direction to the Corporate Debtor to pay an amount of Rs. 7,39,31,941/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the Applicant and the counter claim filed by Corporate Debtor was rejected. Copy of decree has been annexed. Thereafter the Corporate Debtor being aggrieved by the decree filed a first appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat along with an application for condonation of delay. The condonation of delay was rejected by Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the Corporate debtor went to Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay and remanded the matter to Hon'ble High Court which is pending till date. The H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le High Court, therefore it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that amount of claim of the Applicant is quantified and adjudicated by the competent court and the said judgment has not attained finality and is still pending before the competent court of law. It is further submitted that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Essar Steel India Ltd., CoC vs. Satish Gupta & Ors. (CA No. 8766-67 of 2019), the claim of applicant is admitted with a notional amount of Rs. 1/-. 6. After hearing both sides, liberty was granted to file written submissions. The Respondent resolution professional has filed its written submissions and relied on the below stated para of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Essar Steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contract, the Applicant had filed a suit before Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar in 1999. The Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar after adjudication of the matter passed a decree followed by a judgment in 2015 in favour of the Applicant. It is noted that the Corporate Debtor had filed a counter claim before the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar however the same was rejected while passing decree. Being aggrieved by the decree, the Corporate Debtor approached the Hon'ble High Court. In the meantime, Applicant had filed an execution application, however neither any stay nor interim order is passed in both the proceedings. During the pendency of the appeal and execution proceeding the Corporate Debtor filed an application under Section 10 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CA No. 8766-67 of 2019) (Supra) as relied by the Resolution Professional, the Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that "the resolution professional admitted the claim of the respondents notionally at INR 1 on the ground that there were disputes pending before various authorities in respect of the said amounts". In view thereof the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "the resolution professional was correct in only admitting the claim at a notional value of INR 1 due to the pendency of disputes with regard to these claims". Per Contra in the instant matter the claim has reached finality as on date, in view of the decree of competent court who had already adjudicated the claim by application of judicial mind in favour of Applicant. Moreover, the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
