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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more