Cytech Coatings Pvt. Ltd vs G.R. Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 420 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the operational creditor's Section 9 application is shown, from the parties' own pre-demand-notice correspondence, to have been met by a prior objection on the quality of the goods supplied and an expressed inability to pay on that account, a dispute existed before the demand notice was issued; the Adjudicating Authority was therefore right to hold that the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not maintainable on account of a pre-existing dispute.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Cytech Coatings Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
G.R. Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhigya, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj and Ms. Aakanksha Nehra, Advocates
ORDER
20.08.2018 The appellant (Operational Creditor) filed an application
under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which has been
rejected by the impugned order dated 15th June, 2018.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there
was no pre-existence of dispute and whatever dispute was there has been settled.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent referred to the
e-mails to suggest that there is an existence of dispute which was the reason for
rejecting the application.
From the record, we find that the Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the
I&B Code was issued by the appellant on 24th November, 2017, but much prior
to the same by email dated 1st July, 2016, the 'Operational Creditor' admitted
the fact that it was charging the excess rates. By e-mail dated 20th August, 2
2016 the 'Corporate Debtor' intimated that full stock was of sub-standard
quality. Another e-mail dated 17th December, 2016 issued by the 'Corporate
Debtor' shows that the 'Corporate Debtor' has expressed its inability to pay in
view of sub-standard goods. In view of the aforesaid admitted position, we hold
that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the application under
Section 9 was not maintainable on account of pre-existence of dispute.
In absence of any merit the appeal is dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)
ns/uk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 420 of 2018
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