Aslam Shaikh vs Solaris Ceramics Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 491 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal reads the e-mail correspondence as acknowledging the debt as payable by the corporate debtor, and treats a claim that the amount was to be adjusted or recovered under a later letter as not defeating an application under Section 9, because a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is not a recovery proceeding and is not the forum for resolving such contentions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Aslam Shaikh ...Appellant
Vs.
Solaris Ceramics Private Limited ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Aman Verma, Mr. Abhishek Adke, Advocates.
For Respondent: - Ms. Sakshee Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates.
O R D E R
06.05.2019─ The Respondent- ('Operational Creditor') has filed an
application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
("I&B Code" for short). It having admitted by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, by order
dated 9th April, 2019. The said order is under challenge.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Shareholder
of 'Nasban Import and Export Private Limited'- ('Corporate Debtor')
submits that there is no amount payable in view of inter communication
made through e-mail.
Contd/-...............
-2-
3. Reliance has been placed on two e-mails. One dated 15th February,
2018 (at Page 110) and the other dated 2nd December, 2017 (at Page 111),
which reads as follows:
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 491 of 2019 -3-
4. Heard Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Appellant and Ms. Sakshee Sharma, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 491 of 2019 -4-
5. On plain reading of the two emails aforesaid, it is clear that the
debt amount was payable by the 'Corporate Debtor'. Subsequently they
had made some correspondence but the Respondent in view of such
default of payment filed application under Section 9 of the 'I&B Code'.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent
cannot recover the money as it was either to be adjusted or was to be
recovered in terms of the letter dated 15th February, 2018. However, as
the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' is not a recovery
proceeding, we are not inclined to accept such submission.
7. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial)
Ar/g
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 491 of 2019
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