Global Canesugar Services Private ... vs Kgs Sugar & Infra Corporation Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 296 of 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
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