9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited (hereinafter, "Appellant" or "Operational Creditor") against the Impugned Order dated 07.08.2023, passed by the Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (hereinafter, "Adjudicating Authority -AA") in Company Petition (I.B.) No. 25/CB/2022. 2. Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter, "Code") filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority against Shivom Minerals Limited (hereinafter, "Respondent" or "Corporate Debtor"). 3. Case of the appellant and the respondent is mentioned in the paras 2 and 3 of the impugned order and is not being reproduced for brevity. 4. Briefly speaking, it is not disputed that the Appellant and respondent had been de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of preponderance of probabilities. We are not going to dwell on this issue herein, as the reasons for which the Section 9 Application has been dismissed are explained in detail by the Adjudicating Authority, which is dealt in subsequent paragraphs while deciding on the issue of pre-existing dispute and while going through the impugned order we can say that it not just based on preponderance of probabilities alone but many other circumstantial factors. 9. The main point for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority was whether there is a pre-existing dispute on the basis of the submissions of both the parties and this has been dealt in detail by the Adjudicating Authority in his impugned order. 10. The Adjudicating Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AA concluded that the respondent after the receipt of the statutory demand notice dated 11.02.2022 replied on 03.03.2022 raising a dispute. The Adjudicating Authority has gone into the circumstances of their business dealings, which was mainly basis oral arrangements and which cannot be fully substantiated and accordingly have come to the conclusion that the dispute raised by the respondent is plausible and not a patently feeble legal argument. Thus, when the Appellant received the reply to Section 8 demand notice raising a dispute, the Section 9 petition could not have been proceeded under I&B Code against the respondent. 12. The Adjudicating Authority concluded, that to determine the contention of the respondent that the Sale Order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
