Gokul Exim Private Limited vs Grid India Power Cable Private Limited

Gokul Exim Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Grid India Power Cable Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Present but appearance not marked. For Respondent:

ORDER

12.12.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has

been filed against order dated 28.09.2022 by which the application filed under

Section 9 filed by the Appellant - Operational Creditor has been rejected. After

Demand Notice was issued, the Corporate Debtor has sent a reply and after

Section 9 application was filed, detailed reply was filed denying the invoices.

A Supplementary Affidavit was filed by the Corporate Debtor where it is stated

that forged invoices have been filed. Even the Form C, on which reliance was

placed, was also got cancelled subsequently alleging that the Form-C was got

issued fraudulently in collusion and connivance with an employee of the

Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority

dismissed the application by making following observations in Para 9 of the

impugned order:

Cont'd.../ -2-

"9. The Respondent has alleged that invoices have been forged by the Applicant to extort money from the Respondent and the Respondent has placed on record certain document which shows that vehicles that used to carry the goods does not have the capacity to carry such quantity of goods which was denied by the applicant and stated that the Corporate Debtor has its own transportation carrier. The amount of debt due, if any, cannot be ascertained as long as the authenticity of invoices is proved.

The dispute with respect to forgery of invoices cannot be decided by this Adjudicating Authority. It is settled law that proceedings before NCLT are summary in nature and adversarial evidence cannot be led and appraised by this Tribunal. This Adjudicating Authority is not expected to ascertain the veracity of invoices raised in a summary proceeding, if the Tribunal starts adjudicating these types of issues, then the purpose of enacting the statute for speedy disposal by the mechanism will be defeated, therefore, the Applicant may explore other legal remedies."

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no dispute

and initially only two invoices were denied but subsequently in reply of the

Corporate Debtor 28 invoices have been denied. It is submitted that the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1452 of 2022 -3-

transportation was done by the Corporate Debtor itself, hence, there is no

question about the delivery.

3. In reply which was filed by the Corporate Debtor invoices including the

delivery of goods were all disputed. Form C, on basis of which application was

filed, was subsequently got cancelled on the ground that those were obtained

fraudulently.

4. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any

error in rejecting Section 9 application in the facts of the present case. It is

open for the Appellant to establish its claim and seek remedy in accordance

with law. With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1452 of 2022