Skip to main content

Adjudicating authority can either admit Application or to reject the same. No third option or course is postulated by law

In Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Chemizol Additives Pvt. Ltd., appeal was filed before the NCLAT against the order of the NCLT whereby the Adjudicating Authority without admitting the Application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency Code, disposed an Application by directing the Respondent - Corporate Debtor, in the first instance, to make endeavours for resolution in respect of outstanding debt, failing which the Appellant would be at liberty to invoke arbitration clause contained in Agreement.

The NCLAT observed that on plain reading of the Section 9, it emerges that the Adjudicating Authority is required either to admit the Application, if the same is complete, there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt, the invoice or notice for payment has been delivered to the Corporate Debtor and no notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor or there is no record of dispute in the information utility. The Adjudicating Authority may reject the Application, if the Application is incomplete or that the operational debt stands paid, or the Creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to Corporate Debtor or that the notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor, or there is a record of dispute forthcoming from the information utility. It is abundantly clear that the Adjudicating Authority has only two options, either to admit Application or to reject the same. No third option or course is postulated by law.

Instead, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded to make out a case for the Respondent-Corporate Debtor on the premise that the Appellant-Operational Creditor has not invoked other remedies available under law.

The NCLAT observed that contrary to the opinion of NCLT, availability of alternate remedy would not  render the debt and default disputed. In absence of pre-existing dispute having been raised by the Corporate Debtor or it being demonstrated that a suit or arbitration was pending in respect of the operational debt, in respect whereof Corporate Debtor was alleged to have committed default, the Adjudicating Authority would not be justified in drawing a conclusion in respect of there being dispute as regards debt and default merely on the strength of an Agreement relied upon by the Appellant – Operational Creditor, notwithstanding the fact that such Agreement provided for reference of a dispute arising between the parties in relation to a claim through arbitration. Even otherwise, Section 238 of the I&B Code, which has an overriding effect over the existing laws or any other law or contract, would not admit of the alternative remedy being a disabling provision for Operational Creditor to seek resolution of a dispute in regard to operational debt claimed against the Corporate Debtor by triggering the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Adjudicating Authority was concerned with the insolvency resolution qua the operational debt, which the Corporate Debtor owed to the Operational Creditor. It was immaterial whether it was solvent or insolvent qua other creditors. The I&B Code would not permit the Adjudicating Authority to make a roving enquiry into the aspect of solvency or insolvency of the Corporate Debtor except to the extent of the Financial Creditors or the Operational Creditors, who sought triggering of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more