Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Bls Polymers Limited vs Rms Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal20 December 2022Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An operational creditor's Section 9 application for an amount below the minimum default threshold of Rs.1 crore, filed after 24.03.2020, is not maintainable and must be rejected, following the two earlier decisions of this Tribunal relied on by the Adjudicating Authority. A cost imposed on the applicant while dismissing such an application, where there is no occasion for it, is to be deleted.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1499 of 2022IN THE MATTER OF:

BLS Polymers Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

RMS Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Present but appearance not marked.

For Respondent:

ORDER

20.12.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has

been filed challenging the order dated 18.10.2022 by which order the

Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application under Section 9 filed by

the Appellant.

2. The Appellant - Operational Creditor has filed Section 9 application

claiming an amount of Rs.32,28,480 as principal due with interest of

Rs.3,65,250/-. The Application was filed by the Appellant before the

Adjudicating Authority on 29.06.2021. The Adjudicating Authority after

hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the application filed after

24.03.2020 does not fulfil the threshold of Rs.1 Crore, hence, it is not

maintainable. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly placed reliance on two

judgments of this Tribunal for coming to the conclusion in Para 9, 11 and 12.

Cont'd.../ -2-

3. We do not find any error in the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority

that application not fulfilling minimum threshold limit of Rs.1 Crore is not

maintainable. We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating

Authority rejecting Section 9 application filed by the Appellant.

4. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that there

was no occasion for imposition of cost of Rs.20,000/-, which has been imposed

on the Appellant while dismissing the application.

5. We are of the view that present is a case where order imposing cost

needs to be deleted.

6. Subject to deletion of cost, the Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1499 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