9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was also replied by the Corporate Debtor. Section 9 Application was filed being CP(IB)No.36/CB/2022 by the Operational Creditor in the year 2022, to which reply was also filed by the Corporate Debtor. Arbitration proceedings before the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in BALASORE ALLOYS LIMITED VERSUS MSTC LIMITED [ 2023 (9) TMI 1457 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] under Section 11, sub-section (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was initiated on 31.08.2023, on which an order was passed by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court on 13.09.2023. Both the Arbitration Application and order of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court, which were sought to be brought on record by the Corporate Debtor, were much subsequent to filing of Section 9 Application. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l naptha, crude oil, coking coal etc. (ii) The Operational Creditor issued a Demand Notice dated 05.05.2022 under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with respect to outstanding amount of Rs.18,69,06,540/-. The Demand Notice was replied by the Corporate Debtor vide reply dated 16.05.2022. Company Petition CP(IB) No.36/CB/2022 was filed under Section 9 by the Operational Creditor seeking initiation of CIRP. In Section 9 Application, Corporate Debtor filed its reply on 19.11.2022. (iii) The Appellant issued notice dated 11.04.2023 calling upon the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.17 crores within a period of 08 days, failing which the said notice be treated as Arbitration notice as per Cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Applicant how the additional documents are just and necessary to arrive conclusion in the C.P. No.36/CB/2022. This Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority IA No.36/CB/2024. 3. We have heard Shri Joy Saha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent. 4. Shri Joy Saha, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, challenging the order contends that the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph-7 of the order had made observation that the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents, however, dismissed the Application relying on the observation of the order of the Hon ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments were not related to Section 9 proceedings, since Section 9 proceedings were pending for consideration at the time when proceeding were initiated by the Appellant in the High Court of Calcutta. It is further submitted that in the Company Petition filed under Section 9, all details of proceedings prior to filing of Section 9 petition were already brought on the record. It is submitted that Hon ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed by the Operational Creditor had made observation that order dated 13.09.2023 and the order of Hon ble Supreme Court shall not affect the pending proceedings under the Code. The Hon ble Supreme Court, thus, clearly indicated that arbitration proceedings, shall not have any bearing on Section 9 Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 by the Calcutta High Court. 9. As noted above, notice under Section 8 was issued by the Operational Creditor on 05.05.2022, which was also replied by the Corporate Debtor. Section 9 Application was filed being CP(IB)No.36/CB/2022 by the Operational Creditor in the year 2022, to which reply was also filed by the Corporate Debtor. Arbitration proceedings before the Hon ble Calcutta High Court under Section 11, sub-section (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was initiated on 31.08.2023, on which an order was passed by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court on 13.09.2023. Both the Arbitration Application and order of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court, which were sought to be brought on record by the Corporate Debtor, were much subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2024. 12. The observation of the Hon ble Supreme Court in order dated 28.11.2023 as noted above, clearly indicate that arbitration order passed in the arbitration proceedings shall not affect proceedings in Section 9 Application under the Code, which was filed by the Operational Creditor. By IA No.36/CB/2024, the Corporate Debtor prayed to bring order dated 13.09.2023 on the record, which has rightly been refused to be accepted by the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order. The arbitration application, on which order dated 13.09.2023 was passed, was also not relevant for Section 9 proceedings, since, the arbitration application was filed by Corporate Debtor before the High Court on 31.08.2023, i.e., much after the initiation of procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
