Skip to main content

IBC: Debts Arising From Different Work Orders Can Be Clubbed To Satisfy The Minimum Threshold

Cause Title : Wam India Private Limited vs SN Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., CP (IB) No.1152/MB-IV/2020, National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai

Date of Judgment/Order : 17.03.2023

Corum : Mr. Prabhat Kumar (Technical) & Mr. Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial)

Citied: 

M/s. A2 Interiors Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. (2021) SCC online NCLT 438

Background

The Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor had a long-standing business relationship with each other. Corporate Debtor used to issue purchase orders to the Operational Creditor for materials/goods/items whenever required for its business purpose and Operational Creditor based on the purchase orders prepared and dispatched the goods along with the invoices for the goods. However, the CD started delaying payment and eventually a demand notice was issued by the OC. The CD did not raise any dispute. Rather the CD assured payment but failed to clear the outstanding debt.

Judgment

The NCLT observed that as per the above narrated facts and material placed on record that there is no dispute raised with regards to the Debt of the Operational Creditor and towards repayment of the same. Secondly, there is admission of liability in the meetings, correspondence and part payments made by the Corporate Debtor. On the objection raised by the CD so to the debt being related to different work orders, the NCLT held that in A2 Interiors Products (supra), it has been decided by the NCLAT that debts arising from different work order(s) can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit.

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