9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that in any event since the appellant herein had stated that they are due in a sum of Rs. 22,56,833/- which amounts to admission and such amount in any event being more than Rs. 1,00,000/- had pressed into service the decision of this Court in the case of MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [ 2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT ] and in that context was of the opinion that the application filed before the NCLT under Section 9 of IBC was sustainable and has accordingly remanded the matter. Be that as it may, in the present circumstance when the claim as put forth by the respondent is to the tune of Rs.1,81,45,943/- after referring to the earlier deductions and the appellant herein is presently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) since according to the respondent, the appellant was due to pay the amount as claimed and stated in the application. The appellant herein were termed as the Corporate debtors. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) through its order dated 23.08.2019, after taking note of the rival contentions, had arrived at the conclusion that the claim as made was not justified and the proceedings under IBC was not sustainable. The respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said order was before the NCLAT. It is in that circumstance, the NCLAT had passed the judgment dated 10.08.2020 which is impugned herein. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.1,81,45,943/- after referring to the earlier deductions and the appellant herein is presently contending that only a sum of Rs.22,56,833/- was due and was offered to be paid but declined to be received by the respondent, the said amount itself was made the basis by the NCLAT to arrive at its conclusion that in any event, the due admitted is more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. The said reasoning in this context would not be justified inasmuch the appellant having admitted that the amount of Rs.22,56,833/- was due, were also ready to pay the said amount. According to them that was the only amount due. Therefore, what was required of the NCLAT was to arrive at the conclusion as to whether any amount over and above Rs.22,56,833/- was due and if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
