Miss Lucy
← All judgments

In the matter of Srikanth International Private Ltd.

National Company Law Tribunal14 December 2023

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority will not entertain or admit an operational creditor's claim under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code process where the claim was filed after the period prescribed for submission of claims following commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, and the Resolution Professional's rejection on that ground is sustained. A claim that is unsupported by reliable documentary evidence of the underlying supply, including documents issued by the corporate debtor rather than by the claimant and the absence of any invoice raised by the claimant, and which includes interest without discernible basis, cannot be accepted as a valid claim. A plea that the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the rejection of an insolvency claim fails where the Resolution Professional's rejection was not based on the claim being time-barred under that Act, but on delay in filing relative to the claim-submission window.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

SL. No.1 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH COURT HALL NO: II PHYSICAL HEARING CORAM: SHRI. RAJEEV BHARDWAJ – HON’BLE MEMBER (J) CORAM: SHRI. SANJAY PURI - HON’BLE MEMBER (T) ATTENDANCE-CUM-ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH, HELD ON 14.12.2023, At 10:30 AM TRANSFER PETITION NO. COMPANY PETITION/APPLICATION NO. IA (IBC)/789/2023 in Company Petition IB/320/2021 Srikanth International Pvt Ltd NAME OF THE COMPANY NAME OF THE PETITIONER(S) Pattabi Enterprises NAME OF THE RESPONDENT(S) Srikanth International Pvt Ltd UNDER SECTION 9 of IBC

ORDER IA (IBC)/789/2023 Orders pronounced, recorded vide separate sheets. In the result, application is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)

Apoorva

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH - II

I.A.No.789 of 2023 in CP (IB) No.320/09/HDB/2021 Between: M/s. Sai Ayyappa Traders, D.No.24-12-17, Peddadavari Street, Sreerampuram, Bhimavaram -534 202 ....Applicant Vs Dr. Immaneni Eswara Rao, Resolution Professional of M/s. Srikanth International Private Ltd, #40-26-22, Mohiddin Street, Chandramoulpuram, Opp: Telephone Exchange, M.G. Road, Labbipeta, Vijayawada – 500 010. .... Respondent In the matter of: M/s. Pattabi Enterprises .... Operational Creditor Vs. M/s. Srikanth International Pvt. Ltd. .... Corporate Debtor

Date of order: 14.12.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Sri Sanjay Puri, Member (Technical)

IA No.789 of 2023 in CP (IB) No.320/09/HDB/2021 Order dated : 14.12.2023

Counsels present: For the Applicant : Mr. Konala Sekhar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. VSR Avadhani, Advocate Heard on : 11.12.2023

[PER: SANJAY PURI] ORDER

1. This application has been filed by a creditor of the Corporate Debtor (CD), asserting a claim of Rs 6,74,01,849 owed by the CD, which entered Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 30.06.2022.

2. In support of their claim, the Applicant has presented a copy of a letter1 dated 23.06.2021, purportedly written by the CD. Notably, this letter is addressed to State Bank of India rather than the Applicant, and there is no evidence of its receipt by any party.

3. Additionally, the Applicant has submitted 158 "RAW MATERIAL CHALLAN/INVOICE" documents2 with varying amounts, issued by the CD ostensibly for prawns received between 11 July 2018 and 12 August 2019, totalling more than Rs 17 crores. These documents indicate a substantial quantity of material supplied (in thousands of Kg), yet lack essential details such as delivery vehicle information, weigh slip etc. making it difficult to confirm the actual receipt of such a large supply over a five-year period. Notably again, the documents supplied are those of the CD and not of the Applicant who has made the claim. Not a single invoice raised by the Applicant for supply of goods to the CD has been brought on record.

1 Page 17 of the Application 2 Page 18 to 174 of the Application

IA No.789 of 2023 in CP (IB) No.320/09/HDB/2021 Order dated : 14.12.2023

4. The claim made by the Applicant was rightly rejected by the Resolution Professional. The rejection, as communicated, was based on the grounds of a significant delay.

5. The CIRP commenced on 30 June 2022, and any claim could have been submitted within 90 days thereof, i.e., by 28.09.2022. However, the Applicant filed the claim on 29 March 2023, reflecting a delay of more than 180 days. Furthermore, the claim lacked reliable documentation, and the inclusion of interest amount had no discernible basis.

6. The Applicant's arguments regarding the application of the Limitation Act hold no merit, as the Resolution Professional did not reject the claims on the grounds of being time-barred under the Limitation Act.

For these reasons, the application is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY PURI) (RAJEEV BHARDWAJ) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

VL

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