In the matter of Masterly Kolkata Facility Maintenance Private Limited
- CitationCompany Petition (IB) No. 276/KB/2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is pending and the operational creditor's claim has, during the pendency of the application, been reduced by payments received to a residual amount below the minimum threshold prescribed under section 4 of the Code, the application is to be dismissed, the Adjudicating Authority being satisfied that the default alleged no longer meets the threshold requirement for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
5. During the course of pendency of the matter, the Operational Creditor has filed supplementary affidavit dated 22 February 2024 wherein the Operational Creditor has admitted that Corporate Debtor has made payment to the tune of Rs. 1,39,25,920/ Further, the Corporate Debtor through reply affidavit dated 1st April 2024 to the supplementary affidavit filed by Operational creditor admitted 1,39,25,920/- has been paid to Operational Creditor.
6. It is evident that the Operational Creditor has made a claim of Rs 1,46,88,796/- under this application. In the interregnum payment has been made to the tune of Rs 1,39,25,920/- to the DIVISION BENCH, COURT NO. II KOLKATA Company Petition (IB) No. 276/KB/2022 Operational Creditor. Hence, only Rs 7,62,866/- remaining payable to the Operational Creditor. Thus, the remaining balance is below the threshold limit as prescribed under 4 of the IBC.
7. Thus, the present application is dismissed accordingly.
8. A certified copy of this order may be issued, if applied for with the Registry, upon compliance with requisite formalities.
D. Arvind Bidisha Banerjee Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
This Order is signed on 18/04/2024.
Bose, R.K (LRA) and N.K.S (LRA)
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