Hemang Resources Ltd vs Ssp Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 660 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A pre-existing dispute between the parties, in the form of the corporate debtor's objection to the quality of goods supplied, raised before the issuance of a demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a ground on which an application under Section 9 of that Code may be rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M/s. Hemang Resources Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s. SSP Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: - Ms. Purti Marhawar Gupta, Ms. Henna George and Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, Advocates.
ORDER
29.10.2018─ The application preferred by the Appellant
('Operational Creditor') under Section 9 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 having rejected by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal) vide order dated 12th September,
2018 the Appellant has challenged the.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the
record.
3. From the record we find that pursuant to 'High Seas Agreement'
dated 29th February, 2016 and 'Purchase Orders' dated 2nd March,
2016, certain transactions were taken place. Supplies were made but
the 'Corporate Debtor' complained to the 'Operational Creditor' in
respect of the quality of coal supplied and ultimately addressed the
e-mail dated 27th February, 2017.
-2-
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits
that objection by the e-mail relating to quality of coal was raised only
after the balance confirmation was made by the 'Corporate Debtor'.
However, it has not been disputed that the 'Corporate Debtor' raised
objection regarding to quality of coal much prior to issuance of demand
notice under Section 8(1) of the 'I&B Code'.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, there being a pre-existence
dispute, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application.
We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 660 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