Skip to main content

Arbitration Clause In Agreement Is Not An Embargo On Filling Under Insolvency Code

Cause Title : Mr. Shahi Md. Karim vs M/s. Kabamy India LLP, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 16 of 2023, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal At Chennai

Date of Judgment/Order : 25/01/2023

Corum : Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) & Ms. Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

Background

An appeal against order of the NCLT, Hyderabad admitting an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor.

The Appellant, has challenged the Admission Order on the ground that there was an Arbitration Clause in the C & F Agreement and that the Respondent ought to have invoked this Clause.

Judgment

The NCLAT dismissing the appeal decided that there is no embargo on the Operational Creditor, to file a Section 9 Petition, under I & B Code, 2016, even if there is an Arbitration Clause, in the Agreement. The scope and objective of the Code is Resolution, and not a Recovery Mode / Forum. In the instant case, the Adjudicating Authority, based on the material on record, had arrived at a conclusion that there were recurring defaults on behalf of the Corporate Debtor and that the Operational Creditor, has requested for full and final payment of the outstanding dues. The Corporate Debtor vide Reply dated 01.02.2022, requested for dispatch of the inventory stocked in the warehouse in Mumbai. The Operational Creditor in reply to the email, sent an email dated 02.02.2022, highlighting the outstanding dues, along with the Ledger attached. But, there was no response and the Operational Creditor sent one more email dated 29.03.2022, demanding the outstanding total dues of Rs.3,12,81,028/- and therefore issued a Legal Notice dated 28.06.2022, for which, the Corporate Debtor sent a ‘Reply’ dated 12.07.2022, but the amounts were not paid. Therefore there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority.

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