Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at in the date of default is an important factor and there is no sufficient reasoning given for arriving at the date of default. Appellants having been writing to the Respondent that about the value of the iron ore and the fact that has been sold and the fact that amount of Rs.1 Crore was remitted by Respondent clearly proves that the said amount was paid towards the price for sale of iron ores. No justification has come as to why the Respondent has not paid back the amount of Rs.1.65 Crores as claimed by the Appellant. In the Reply which was filed by the Respondent before the Adjudicating Authority it was sought to contended that the claim of damages cannot be decided in proceeding under Section 7 and there is no time value of money involv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... deration shall be remitted to the Appellant. iv. It is submitted that after the Share Transfer Agreement, the entire stock was sold in May June, 2021 and the Appellant thereafter sent several emails to the Respondent for remitting the amount received from sale of the iron ore and ultimately only an amount of Rs.1 Crore was remitted to the Appellants 25 Lakhs each which is reflected in their email dated 30.06.2021. v. It is submitted that in spite of several reminders when no amount was paid legal notice was also issued on 22.08.2021 and thereafter Application under Section 7 was filed claiming an amount of Rs. 1.65 Crores. In which Application Notices were issued, Corporate Debtor appeared and filed the Reply and Adjudicating Authority by I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der submits that the transaction clearly involved the Financial Debt within meaning of Section 5(8)(e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short The IBC or The Code ) to which the Adjudicating Authority has not adverted and the observation of the Adjudicating Authority that there is no time value of money in the transaction is not correct. It is further submitted that the correspondence between the Parties clearly indicates that the amount of Rs.1 Crore was towards the value of sale of iron ores. 4. When the case was taken up today for hearing, no one appears for the Respondent. The Share Transfer Agreement is part of record which is filed as Annexure A-2 and the Share Transfer Agreement contemplated following: Further buyer an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore the Adjudicating Authority as well as before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing on 09.07.2024, as noted above the amount of Rs. 1 Crore was sought to be explained towards consideration of Share Purchase Agreement which is apparently incorrect. The email dated 30.06.2021 which was sent by the Respondent, the series of correspondence has been brought on record where the Appellants have been requesting the Respondent to make the payment towards the sale of iron ore in the email dated 07.05.2021, the Appellant has informed the Respondent that the amount has been showed as a marked value of the iron ore is Rs. 2.65 Crores. In the email dated 08.04.2021 filed as Annexure A-3 it is mentioned that iron ore has been sold for amount of Rs. 2. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. No justification has come as to why the Respondent has not paid back the amount of Rs.1.65 Crores as claimed by the Appellant. In the Reply which was filed by the Respondent before the Adjudicating Authority it was sought to contended that the claim of damages cannot be decided in proceeding under Section 7 and there is no time value of money involved in the case. Acknowledgment of liability was also denied. 9. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that Appellant has proved that the transaction involved as Financial Debt within meaning of Section 5(8)(e) of the IBC and Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Application filed by the Appellant under Section 7. 10. In result, the Appeal is allowed. The Order impugned is set as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates