Ashish Sudesh Kumar Goyal vs Padam Electronics & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 86 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the operational creditor's demand notice is met by the corporate debtor's admission of part of the operational debt, and that admitted part exceeds Rupees One Lakh and remains unpaid after the demand notice, the Adjudicating Authority is entitled to admit an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; a dispute raised as to the balance, or as to the quality of goods supplied, does not defeat admission where the admitted portion itself satisfies the threshold and is undischarged.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ashish Sudeshkumar Goyal, Suspended Director of Superchem Coatings Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Padam Electronics & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Vikas Bhadauria, Advocate. For Respondents: Ms. Sabhya Jain, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Surbhi Gupta, Advocate for R-2.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
25.01.2022: Heard counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed
against order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, Court-1 admitting the
application under Section 9 filed by the Operational Creditor. Vide notice dated
06.05.2019, the Operational Creditor called upon the Corporate Debtor to pay
the balance outstanding together with interest. The Corporate Debtor replied
to notice admitting the part debt disputing the actual amount claimed by the
Operation Creditor on the ground that the goods supplied were of poor
workmanship and sub-standard. The Adjudicating Authority returned a
finding that since the Corporate Debtor has admitted the operational debt to
the tune of Rs.3,28,800/- which is yet to be paid and after receiving the
Demand Notice no payment was made, the application filed by the Operational
Creditor is admitted.
Cont'd..../ 2
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that even before the Demand
Notice was issued emails were sent pointing out poor workmanship and
defective machinery supplied. He has referred email dated 13.04.2019 in this
context, which reads as under:
"As informed during your personal visit, your supplied furnace has lot of poor workmanship and defective parts. Maintaining part is still under process and we shall share all the additional cost details once work is complete."
3. When part of the debt has been admitted by the Corporate Debtor, which
debt was of more than Rupees One Lakh, no error has been committed by the
Adjudicating Authority in admitting the application. We find no merit in this
Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 86 of 2022
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