Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Continental Carriers Pvt. Ltd vs Camson Agri-Ventures Pvt. Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal16 May 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an operational creditor's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is founded on a demand notice, and the corporate debtor had, before the demand notice was issued, raised a dispute concerning the quality or timeliness of the services rendered, the existence of such a pre-notice dispute renders the application not maintainable and it must be rejected.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 523 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

Continental Carriers Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

Camson Agri-Ventures Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Adhish Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Malik, Advocates.

O R D E R

16.05.2019─ The Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of

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

initiation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against 'M/s.

Camson Agri Ventures Private Limited'- ('Corporate Debtor'). The

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru

Bench, on hearing the counsel for the parties, by impugned order dated

12th April, 2019 rejected the application on the ground of 'existence of

dispute'.

2. On hearing learned counsel for the Appellant and on perusal of the

record, we find that Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the 'I&B Code'

was issued by the Appellant on 30th October, 2017. Much prior to

issuance of demand notice by e-mail dated 6th March, 2017, the

Contd/-..............

-2-

'Corporate Debtor' raised dispute about insufficient services in sending

the goods on time.

3. Admittedly, the Appellant is a transport carrier which provides

services and not the goods. There being a dispute about providing proper

services, we hold that the application under Section 9 was not

maintainable.

4. In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial)

(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical) Ar/g

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 523 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