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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
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