Abdul Hannan vs Jai Jute And Industries Limited

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1293 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4533 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Abdul Hannan ...Appellants Versus Jai Jute & Industries Ltd. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Sadpurna Mukherjee, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

15.07.2024: Heard counsel for the appellant as well as respondent.

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by Adjudicating

Authority dated 05.03.2024 by which Section 9 application filed by the

appellant has been rejected. Appellant filed the Section 9 application claiming

the amount in default Rs.2,16,17,430/- w.e.f. 14.07.2017 appellant case is

that he supplied jute to the corporate debtor and the amount is unpaid amount

from the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor filed a reply to the Section 9

application and came with a case that on 17.07.2017 a police complaint was

filed by the corporate debtor against the operational creditor and his close

Mehboob Hassan and thereafter on 20.07.2017 a settlement agreement was

made between the parties under which it was decided to make payment of Rs.

66 Lacs in the instalments to the operational creditor and thereafter payments were made. It is submitted that for security of Rs.66 Lacs a post-dated cheque

was also given under the settlement dated 20.07.2017. The corporate debtor

submitted that amount have been paid nothing was due and the bills and

confirmation of accounts all are fabricated and forged documents by the

Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority considered the case of the

parties by impugned order has dismissed the application, aggrieved by the said

order this appeal has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no proof of the

settlement entered and on the basis of police complaint no FIR was registered

and no case was registered against the appellant.

3. It is further submitted that an amount is still due and balance

confirmation was brought on the record along with Rejoinder-Affidavit filed by

the operational creditor which indicate that in the year 2020 the corporate

debtor acknowledged the balance amount.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submission submits that

the amount and settlement was paid hence the post-dated cheque was never

deposited had the amount was not paid post-dated cheque could have been

deposited and further the balance confirmation is manufactured document

which does not bear the seal of the corporate debtor and was not even referred

to in Section 9 application.

5. We have considered submission of parties and is considered the

materials on record. From own case of the appellant the amount due from

14.07.2017 the application Section 9 was filed by the appellant in the year

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1293 of 2024 2 of 3 2022. The fact that for long five years no steps were taken by the operational

creditor for the amount due clearly indicate that the defence taken by the

corporate debtor that settlement was entered in 2017 under which amount

were paid to the appellant has rightly been accepted by the Adjudicating

Authority. There is no denial that the police complaint was filed the mere fact

that FIR was not registered does not in any way militate against filing of the

complaint.

6. Further, post-dated cheque of Rs. 66 Lacs is claim to be submitted which

was never deposited also indicate that the amount was received hence the

cheque was never deposited. The long silence for 5 years by the operational

creditor in not claiming any due if according to the appellant dues were there

speaks for itself.

7. We are of the view that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating

Authority in rejecting Section 9 application in facts of the case. No merits in the

appeal hence Appeal is dismissed.

8. However, this dismissal of Section 9 shall not preclude the appellant to

take such proceedings as permissible in accordance the law.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1293 of 2024 3 of 3