Skip to main content

Strict burden of proof not applicable to proceedings under the I&B Code, 2016

Cause Title : Ashok Kumar Bhasin. vs ABB Power Products and Systems India Limited, Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 414 of 2023, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Date of Judgment/Order : 

Corum : 

Citied: 

Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558

Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 220

Mascot Petrochem Private Limited Vs. Midas Construction Company Private Limited, C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 1399 of 2019 decided on 03.02.2022,

Background

The Appellant suspended director of the Corporate Debtor Sigma-C Infrastructure Private Limited has filed this Appeal challenging the admission order under Section 9 of the Insolvency Code, issued by NCLT, Kolkata.

Allegedly, some goods were supplied by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor for onward delivery to CESC, against which payment were not received. Hence the application under Section 9.

One of objections raised by the  Corporate Debtor was that Operational Creditor has failed to file any document proving delivery of the materials which fact was also noticed in the communication by Advocate of Operational Creditor. Operational Creditor in Section 9 Application did not file any proof of service of Section 8 Notice. The burden of proof lies on the Operational Creditor proving delivery of goods before any claim for payment can be considered. Operational Creditor failed to prove the delivery of goods.

Judgment

The NCLAT observed that supplementary affidavit was filed before the Adjudicating Authority bringing on record the proof of service of Section 8 Notice and in the said notice, Section 9 application as well as Part-IV of the Application (Particulars of Operational Debt), it has been clearly stated that “the equipment was duly received by the Corporate Debtor from the Operational Creditor, without any dispute or demur.” Further, the tax invoice has been filed along with Section 9 Application dated 16.05.2018 in which details of recipients is mentioned as name of the Corporate Debtor and details of consignee was mentioned as CESC Limited. Also, there were communications between the OP and the CD which indicate deliveries were made and at no point of time prior to filing reply to Section 9 Application, corporate debtor issued any such letter or complaint informing the Operational Creditor about non-delivery of goods. 

Invalidating the various SC judgments referred to by the CD which had insisted on strict proof of delivery for admission of application under Section 9 of IBC, the NCLAT held that the above judgements were considering the provisions of Section 101, 102 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were in context of burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act. Strict burden of proof under the Evidence Act can not be applicable with regard to proceedings under the I&B Code, 2016 which are summary proceeding where pleadings are in proforma as prescribed in Rules and Regulations.

As for the NCLT order, the NCLAT held that this is a case where Demand Notice was not even replied by the Corporate Debtor and the plea raised in the Reply by the Corporate Debtor regarding non-supply of goods has been held to be dishonest plea and moonshine plea hence the judgement of this Tribunal in above case does not come to any help to the Appellant.

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