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

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