Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Global Canesugar Services Private ... vs Kgs Sugar & Infra Corporation Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal21 June 2018

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an operational creditor's claim rests on minutes of meetings that the debtor's authorised person is not shown to have signed, and the debtor has already disputed the debt in pending civil proceedings and in reply to the demand notice before the notice was issued, the existence of a pre-existing dispute is established, and an application under Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is rightly dismissed on that ground.

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. 296 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

Global Canesugar Services Private Limited ...Appellant

Vs.

KGS Sugar & Infra Corporation Limited ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate.

For Respondent: None.

ORDER

21.06.2018- Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. Perused the

impugned order.

The Appellant is relying on minutes dated 13th April, 2015 to say

that there was admitted debt. However, learned counsel is unable to show

authorised person of Respondent signing the same. The counsel says that

the holding of such meeting is not disputed in subsequent

correspondence.

The Appellant itself filed a Special Civil Suit No. 07 of 2016 and the

cause of action relied on the meeting held on 13th April, 2015 and another

meeting held on 14th April, 2015.

In reply to the demand notice under Rule 5 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 dated

31st October, 2017, the Respondent vide reply dated 7th November, 2017

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

-2-

claimed that these disputes were pending in Civil Court and before notice

itself there was existing dispute. The Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal) has taken note of these factors and rightly come

to the conclusion that there was dispute existing and dismissed the

petition moved under Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016.

There is no ground made out for entertaining the appeal. The

appeal is rejected.

(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial) (Vacation-Sitting) Ar/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 296 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