9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating Authority' (Authorities), under IBC (waiting for admission), prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification, as opined by this Tribunal. Viewed in the above prospectives, the conclusion arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority' in the impugned order to the effect that the notification dated 24/03/2020 of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, shall be considered as prospective and not retrospective and the finding that there was no payment on the side of 'Corporate Debtor' after receipt of Demand Notice, no pre-existing dispute also alleged or proved and ultimately admitting the application filed by the 2nd Respondent/Operational Creditor are free from legal infirmities. Petition dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the Operational Creditor has rendered its service to the Corporate Debtor and raised invoices for amount of Rs. 8,21,294/- (Rupees Eight lakhs twenty one thousand two hundred and ninety four). The Corporate Debtor has made the last payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakhs fifty thousand) to the Operational Creditor on 26/08/2019. 4. The Operational Creditor submitted that demand notice dated 07/03/2020 was issued to the Corporate Debtor in Form 3 under Section 8(1) of IBC for the payment of debt of Rs. 8,21,294/- (Rupees Eight lakhs twenty one thousand two hundred and ninety four) which was delivered at the registered address of the Corporate Debtor on 11/03/2020. A copy of the said notice is on record. The Corporate Debtor neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/09/2019 was issued demanding Rs. 1,89,744/- (Rupees One Lakhs eighty nine thousand seven hundred and forty four). Demand notice was issued by the Operational Creditor on 07/03/2020 demanding an amount of Rs. 8,21,294/- (Rupees Eight lakhs twenty one thousand two hundred and ninety four) from Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor neither repaid the amount of debt nor replied to the demand notice. B. The Corporate Debtor has filed an affidavit dated 06/03/2021 in reply and submitted that the present petition has been executed on 20/10/2020 after notification dated 24/03/2020 issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs regarding increase in threshold limit from one lakh to one crore for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minimum amount of default limit was specified as Rs. one crore (obviously raising the minimum amount from Rs. one lakh to one crore) unerringly comes to a definite conclusion that the said notification is only 'Prospective in nature' and not a 'retrospective' one because of the simple reason the said notification does not in express term speaks about the applicability of 'retrospective' or 'retroactive' operation. Suffice it for this Tribunal to point out that from the tenor, spirit and the plain words employed in the notification dated 24/03/2020 of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, one cannot infer an intention to take or make it retrospective as in this regard, the relevant word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing dispute also alleged or proved and ultimately admitting the application filed by the 2nd Respondent/Operational Creditor are free from legal infirmities. Resultantly, the instant Appeal fails. E. The above decision of NCLAT is about maintainability of the application filed BEFORE the amendment in section 4 of the IB Code. In the present case before us, the application was filed AFTER the amendment in section 4 of the IB Code. Hence, the said decision is not applicable to our present case. F. The Hon'ble NCLAT, New Delhi in a recent decision dated 25/10/2021 in the case of Jumbo Paper Products versus Hansraj Agrofresh Pvt. Ltd. (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 813 of 2021) has held that the threshold limit to be considered fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
