9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clubbing the interest amount on account of delayed payments with the principal amount. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in Prasat Agarwal Vs Parasrampuria and Ors. [ 2022 (7) TMI 835 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH] wherein it held that when interest of delayed payment is stipulated in the invoice, it will entitle the Operational Creditor for right to payment of interest amount along with outstanding principal amount. While there can be no dispute that when an amount of interest is agreed or statutory, the same shall be clearly part of the debt as long as the claim of interest is not disputed. In the present case, however, when the Corporate Debtor in its reply to Section 8 Demand Notice and reply to Section 9 application has clearly and categorically contested the levy of any interest amount and also denied to pay any such interest, this is not a case of payment of any mutually agreed interest. Hence, Prasat Agarwal judgment does not come to the aid of the Appellant as the distinguishing in that case was that the Corporate Debtor had not disputed the levy of interest unlike in the present case where the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was submitted that the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged balance confirmation in favour of the Operational Creditor on 24.05.2016. Since the outstanding aggregate amount of invoices was Rs.52.99 lakhs and payments were outstanding, the Operational Creditor issued a notice on 31.05.2017 demanding payment of the said amount. The Corporate Debtor thereafter made part-payments of Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.2.50 lakhs only on 16.07.2018 and 26.06.2019 respectively. Since the Corporate Debtor was still required to pay a sum of Rs.47.49 lakhs to the Operational Creditor and the invoices contained a specific clause for payment of interest at the rate of 24% p.a. for delayed payments, the Operational Creditor issued a Demand Notice on 07.10.2021 demanding payment of Rs.1.45 cr from the Corporate Debtor which included an interest amount of Rs.97.84 lakhs only. It was further submitted that the Corporate Debtor replied to the Demand Notice on 01.11.2021 in which frivolous allegations were raised by them as an after- thought to avoid making payments. Hence, the Operational Creditor filed Section 9 application before the Adjudicating Authority on 04.01.2022. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. It has been also asserted that the Corporate Debtor had never agreed for payment of any interest amount whatsoever. Not a single correspondence has been placed on record by the Appellant to the effect that the Corporate Debtor had ever agreed to pay interest on any outstanding amount. It was added that the Corporate Debtor in their letter dated 01.11.2021 addressed to the Operational Creditor had specifically denied the interest component. It is also submitted that the balance confirmation statement for the period 2015-16 which has been relied upon by the Appellant is a forged document. It was denied that the seal and signature has been put thereon by the Corporate Debtor or any authorised person on their behalf. 9. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the records carefully. The moot issue for our consideration is whether in the facts of the present case, the Section 9 application filed by the Appellant is maintainable or not in the context of whether interest can be clubbed with the principal debt to cross the threshold limit of Rs.1 crore. 10. It is the case of the Appellant that the invoices issued by them to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinuously issuing letters claiming an absolutely baseless amount, solely for the purpose of making unjust enrichment at our expense. In any event, an action under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not maintainable in the facts of the present case as the claim amount has already been seriously disputed by our various letters. .. .. .. Thereafter, you kept on demanding money on various occasion and the same was disputed by us on several occasion. The last disputed letter sent to you on 2017 against your letter dated 19.06.2017. After discussion with you and after coming up with an mutual understanding that the total amount was decided Rs. 14,47,816 after deducting all the amount which was previously paid by us to you. After deciding the amount of Rs. 14,47,816, we have also paid Rs. 2,50,000 vide cheque No. 585892 dated 25/06/2019 and Rs. 3,00,000 on 12.07.2018 vide cheque No. 332372 and for which you have also issued Money Receipt to us. .. . In view of the above, we deny and dispute each and every allegation made by you. Save and except the above, none of the facts as represented by you are true or correct. We deny that the total amount of debt is Rs. 1,45, 34, 345/- or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said document has never been issued by the Corporate Debtor at any point of time. (i) Even assuming without admitting that the said Balance Confirmation Statement is genuine, the same also does not indicate any component of interest. A mere comparison between page 319 and 353 of the said petition would demonstrate that even as per the operational creditor itself, as on 31st March, 2016, the alleged principal amount was Rs.52,99,701/-, which was not inclusive of the interest component. (j) In a nutshell, I say that there is no contractual rate of interest which was ever agreed upon by and between the parties and as such, no interest can be claimed by the operational creditor as against the corporate debtor. No document has been produced by the operational creditor wherefrom it can be deduced that the interest amount can be claimed by the operational creditor, or is payable by the corporate debtor. (k) It is well settled that amount claimed to be in dispute can only include the principal amount and not the interest amount. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I say that the said petition is not maintainable either in facts, or in law before this Learned Tribunal, as this Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er contra, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in Prasat Agarwal Vs Parasrampuria and Ors. in CA(AT)(INS) No. 690 of 2022 wherein it held that when interest of delayed payment is stipulated in the invoice, it will entitle the Operational Creditor for right to payment of interest amount along with outstanding principal amount. While there can be no dispute that when an amount of interest is agreed or statutory, the same shall be clearly part of the debt as long as the claim of interest is not disputed. In the present case, however, when the Corporate Debtor in its reply to Section 8 Demand Notice and reply to Section 9 application has clearly and categorically contested the levy of any interest amount and also denied to pay any such interest, this is not a case of payment of any mutually agreed interest. Hence, Prasat Agarwal judgment does not come to the aid of the Appellant as the distinguishing in that case was that the Corporate Debtor had not disputed the levy of interest unlike in the present case where the interest has been both disputed and denied. 15. It is a well settled that the guiding principles on treatment of Section 9 app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
