Skip to main content

NLCAT:Pre-existing dispute include pending suits do not apply to applications under Section 7 of I & B Code

In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1021 of 2019, IN THE MATTER OF Karan Goel Vs M/s Pashupati Jewellers, appeal was filed against order  of the Adjudicating Authority admiting the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code preferred by M/s Pashupati Jewellers as a Financial Creditor.

The Appellant objected to the admission of the application on the ground that the ‘Corporate Guarantee and Undertaking’ Agreement provided by the Respondent while taking loan was a fraudulent document and a suit is pending on the said allegation.

The NCLAT observed that ‘Corporate Guarantee and Undertaking’ Agreement was executed on 7th April, 2017 is on record, which shows that the said Agreement is on e-Stamp, Indian Non Judicial issued by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. In the said e-Stamp, it has been clearly mentioned that the e-Stamp was purchased by Marigold Overseas Ltd. for the purpose of Loan Agreement. Merely, because the Appellant - Mr. Karan Goel has entered into as Director in May 2017, now cannot take a plea that the ‘Corporate Guarantee and Undertaking’ Agreement dated 7th April, 2017 was a fraud played by one Mr. Bal Karan Singh Bhullar on the ground that is has not been reflected in the record of the Registrar of Companies. The ‘Corporate Guarantee’ was entered into by the Management of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, i.e., Marigold Overseas Limited. If for one or the other reason, they have not referred the ‘Corporate Guarantee and Undertaking’ Agreement to Registrar of Companies and suppressed the fact, the Appellant or the subsequent Director, cannot take a plea that the ‘Corporate Guarantee and Undertaking’ Agreement was obtained by fraud on 7th April, 2017 and is not reflected in the records of the Registrar of Companies.

Further referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Anr. – (2018) 1 SCC 407, the NLCAT held that it is clear that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied on the basis of records that the debt is payable and there is default, the Adjudicating Authority is required to admit the application. The Respondent – M/s Pashupati Jewellers having enclosed the copy of the ‘Corporate Guarantee and Undertaking’ Agreement dated 7th April, 2017 instituted on e-Stamp, issued by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, it was not open to the Adjudicating Authority to deliberate on the issue whether e-Stamp is a forged document or not. Merely because a suit has been filed by the Appellant and pending, cannot be a ground to reject the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code. Pre-existing dispute cannot be a subject matter of Section 7, though it may be relevant under Section 9 of the I&B Code.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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