Skip to main content

IBC: Raising of dispute only after demand notice or notice from NCLT is not pre-existing dispute

In Rajeev K Aggarwal Vs Panipat Texo Fabs Pvt. Ltd., the appellant as a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor assailed the order of moratorium and appointment of the IRP before the NCLAT on the ground that the goods against which the Corporate Debtor had failed to pay were defective and substandard and the same was communicated to the Operational Creditor and the NCLT had refused to accept the dispute.

The NCLAT on perusing the records found that while raising the dispute at this late stage, the appellant had not been able to substantiate the claim with any evidence. Agreeing with the NCLT that this appeal is a mere sham to delay the process, the NCLAT held that raising of dispute in regard to quality of goods being inferior/substandard or defective for the first time in reply to demand notice or in response to notice served by the Adjudicating Authority would not constitute a prior and pre-existing dispute contemplated under law as a defence to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, more so when the contemporary record in regard to transactions between the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor at the time of delivery of goods or immediately thereafter does not demonstrate raising of any dispute with respect to quality of goods supplied by the Operational Creditor.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more