Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Herodex Power Systems Pvt Ltd vs Raychem Rpg Pvt Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal6 January 2020

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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1463 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

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