Herodex Power Systems Pvt Ltd vs Raychem Rpg Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1463 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal reasons that an email which raises only a complaint of short supply, without disputing the quality of the goods supplied, does not establish a pre-existing dispute, and that where the operational debt for goods supplied exceeds the statutory threshold of Rs. 10 lakhs, an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is maintainable. A cheque issued by the corporate debtor which has not been encashed, but which the corporate debtor asked the operational creditor not to encash, is not treated by the Tribunal as a basis for rejecting the application; the appeal is dismissed on the reasons given for these two points.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shashank Keshav Kalkar ...Appellant
Versus
Raychem RPG Private Limited & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Monish K. Vig,, Mr. Siddharth Acharya and M. Ankur, Advocates.
For Respondents:
ORDER
06.01.2020 This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant -
Shareholder and Director of Herodex Power Systems Pvt. Ltd. ('Corporate
Debtor') against order dated 9th September, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench admitting
application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(for short the 'I&B Code') filed by Raychem RPG Private Limited ('Operational
Creditor').
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there was pre-
existing dispute and referred to an email dated 19th April, 2016 (page-78).
However, from the said email, it is clear that there was no dispute raised with
regard to the quality of the material supplied by the 'Operational Creditor',
but it was only intimated that there was short supply of materials. Even for
the materials supplied, the amount is more than Rs.10 lakhs and therefore,
the application under Section 9 of the I&B code was maintainable.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1463 of 2019 Page 1 of 2
3. Next, it was contended that a cheque was issued to the Respondent on
30th May, 2016 for a sum of Rs.38,49,631/-, which has not yet been
encashed. However, it is accepted that the 'Corporate Debtor' asked the
'Operational Creditor' not to encash the cheque as the cheque was issued on
certain condition.
4. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no case to interfere with the
impugned order. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
Ash/GC
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1463 of 2019 Page 2 of 2
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