Skip to main content

Strict burden of proof not applicable to proceedings under the I&B Code, 2016

Cause Title : Ashok Kumar Bhasin. vs ABB Power Products and Systems India Limited, Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 414 of 2023, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Date of Judgment/Order : 

Corum : 

Citied: 

Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558

Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 220

Mascot Petrochem Private Limited Vs. Midas Construction Company Private Limited, C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 1399 of 2019 decided on 03.02.2022,

Background

The Appellant suspended director of the Corporate Debtor Sigma-C Infrastructure Private Limited has filed this Appeal challenging the admission order under Section 9 of the Insolvency Code, issued by NCLT, Kolkata.

Allegedly, some goods were supplied by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor for onward delivery to CESC, against which payment were not received. Hence the application under Section 9.

One of objections raised by the  Corporate Debtor was that Operational Creditor has failed to file any document proving delivery of the materials which fact was also noticed in the communication by Advocate of Operational Creditor. Operational Creditor in Section 9 Application did not file any proof of service of Section 8 Notice. The burden of proof lies on the Operational Creditor proving delivery of goods before any claim for payment can be considered. Operational Creditor failed to prove the delivery of goods.

Judgment

The NCLAT observed that supplementary affidavit was filed before the Adjudicating Authority bringing on record the proof of service of Section 8 Notice and in the said notice, Section 9 application as well as Part-IV of the Application (Particulars of Operational Debt), it has been clearly stated that “the equipment was duly received by the Corporate Debtor from the Operational Creditor, without any dispute or demur.” Further, the tax invoice has been filed along with Section 9 Application dated 16.05.2018 in which details of recipients is mentioned as name of the Corporate Debtor and details of consignee was mentioned as CESC Limited. Also, there were communications between the OP and the CD which indicate deliveries were made and at no point of time prior to filing reply to Section 9 Application, corporate debtor issued any such letter or complaint informing the Operational Creditor about non-delivery of goods. 

Invalidating the various SC judgments referred to by the CD which had insisted on strict proof of delivery for admission of application under Section 9 of IBC, the NCLAT held that the above judgements were considering the provisions of Section 101, 102 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were in context of burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act. Strict burden of proof under the Evidence Act can not be applicable with regard to proceedings under the I&B Code, 2016 which are summary proceeding where pleadings are in proforma as prescribed in Rules and Regulations.

As for the NCLT order, the NCLAT held that this is a case where Demand Notice was not even replied by the Corporate Debtor and the plea raised in the Reply by the Corporate Debtor regarding non-supply of goods has been held to be dishonest plea and moonshine plea hence the judgement of this Tribunal in above case does not come to any help to the Appellant.

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

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more