Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Adishakti Technology Pvt. Ltd vs Amazon Infosolution Pvt. Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal24 November 2021

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority's finding that no operational debt is due, where advance payments have been partly repaid and the balance is met by goods supplied and retained by the operational creditor, is upheld on the reasoning that the admitted supply of goods worth Rs. 4.19 lakhs, still retained by the operational creditor, adjusts against the advance and leaves no amount due for the purposes of Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHIComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 941 of 2021In the matter of:

Adishakti Technology Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant Vs. Amazon Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent For Appellant: Mr. Chaitanya, Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, Mr. Kartik Pant, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate.

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

24.11.2021: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as

Learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24.02.2020

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),

Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, by which the Application under Section 9 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short) has been

rejected. The Appellant claiming to be the 'Operational Creditor' who had given

advance of Rs. 10 lakhs in two tranches had filed the Application. Demand

Notice under Section 8 was given on 09.01.2019 which was not replied and

subsequently, when petition was filed under Section 9, reply was filed on

30.07.2019. The Adjudicating Authority after considering the material on

record came to the conclusion that no amount is due since certain payments

were made and the amount of Rs. 4.19 lakhs which was for supplied goods

was retained by the 'Operational Creditor' and has been adjusted. 2

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant had no

right and title over the goods worth Rs. 4.19 lakhs.

4. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

5. The Respondent has not disputed that the advance amount of Rs.10

lakhs was received and certain amount was repaid. Admittedly, goods worth

Rs. 4.19 lakhs were supplied and kept in the warehouse of the Appellant. The

Adjudicating Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the goods worth

Rs. 4.19 lakhs were supplied and still retained by the 'Operational Creditor',

hence, there are no dues. We do not find any infirmity in the said decision of

the Adjudicating Authority. No ground is made out to entertain the Appeal.

The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 941 of 2021

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free