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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more