Indiana Conveyors Pvt. Ltd vs Ducon Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of Impugned Order dated 2nd April, 2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in C.P. (IB) No.2825/(IB)/MB/2018 filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016] In the matter of: Indiana conveyors Pvt. Ltd. Indiana House, Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Andheri East, Mumbai 400059 ..Appellant

Vs. Ducon Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A/4, Road No.1, Behind Aplab Company, MIDC, Wagle Industrial Estate Thane, Maharashtra 400064 ...Respondent

Appellant: Mr Abhijit Sinha, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Divyang Chandiramani, Mr Saikat Sarkar, Mr. Nishant Rao, Advocates. Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Sinha, Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Ms A. Khurana, Mr Prateek Garg, Advocates. JUDGMENT

(18th March, 2020)

Mr. Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical)

1. The Appellant (Operational Creditor "OC") has filed this appeal under

Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for

short) against the order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai in Company

Petition No. 2825/(IB)/MB/2018 vide which the petition filed by the

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 2

Appellant was dismissed on the ground that there were pre-existing

disputes between the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Appellant is a private limited company having a paid up capital share

capital of about 2 crores 64 lakhs and is engaged in the business of

manufacturing of equipments required for bulk material handling systems/

components across India. The Appellant has its registered office in

Mumbai, in the State of Maharashtra. The Corporate Debtor raised certain

purchase order/letter of intent on the Operation creditor in or around 2010.

During the period 2010 to 2013, the Corporate Debtor availed of the goods

and services of the Applicants for designing, engineering, manufacturing,

supply, supervision of erection and commissioning of belt conveyors for

their client M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited (unit Aditya Aluminum

Project 1 and unit Mahan Aluminum Project 2). Thereafter the OC raised

various invoices for the goods and services rendered to CD out of which

some of them were cleared and some remained pending. The Respondent

engaged M/s Hindalco Industries Limited to service the debt due and

payable to the OC. The OC had agreed and/or arrived at an understanding

to accept payment of its alleged dues directly from Hindalco for both the

projects.

3. It is stated by the Appellant that from the period of 2011 to 2013, the

Appellant in lieu of the deliveries made raised several invoices amounting

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 3

to a total sum of Rs 5,97,11,875/- towards the aforesaid mentioned

invoices. A sum of Rs 1,15,50,712/- (Rs. 56,58,764/- being the principal

amount plus interest amounting to Rs. 58,91,948) still remain due and

payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant towards the said

aforesaid invoices. Despite the Appellant providing all goods within the

time period stipulated and of the decided quality, the corporate debtor have

not cleared bills raised for the goods and services which admittedly was

provided to the corporate debtor for their project with M/s Hindalco

Industries Limited.

4. The Appellant further stated that the Respondent i.e. the Corporate Debtor

itself has admitted its liability to pay the said debt, yet has not taken any

initiative. The same is evident from the following chronological

correspondence:

a) 26-07-2013- The Respondent, vide its Statement of Accounts for the

period 1st April 2012 to 25th July, 2013 had confirmed that an amount

of Rs 56,48,671/- is due and payable to the Appellant herein after

adjusting debit notes, though the debit notes were not agreed upon

by the Appellant.

b) 01-03-2014 - A meeting held between both parties to discuss the

pending issues, especially with regards to outstanding payments.

The Respondent vide their email dated 1st march, 2014 to the

Appellant forwarded their version of minutes of meetings dated 21 st

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 4

February, 2014. In the said minutes, the respondent admitted its

liability towards the outstanding 52,87,267/-. It was also stated in

the said minutes that final payment will be released project wise after

considering all debit notes and deductibles provisioned as per

respective PO's if any.

c) 08-03-2014 - Both the parties had a further meeting and the minutes

of meeting dated 21st February, 2014 were revised. The Appellant

vide its email dated 8th march, 2014 forwarded the correct version of

the minutes of meeting dated 21st February, 2014 which was earlier

agreed upon between both the parties. The said minutes incorporated

correctly the outstanding amount towards the aforesaid invoices was

Rs. 57,42,410/-. The respondent never challenged or denied this

minutes of meeting.

d) 29-03-2014 & 23-05-2014 - When the issue was raised it was not in

the form of quality issue as the same has arisen due to rubbing of the

rubber belt against conveyor structure, as mentioned in the mails

dated 29th march, 2014 and 23rd may, 2014 which was not within the

scope of the Appellants work. Erection of the equipments was in the

scope of respondent.

e) 17-01-2015 & 28-01-2015 - Since the Respondent was facing some

financial crisis, they proposed that payments for certain outstanding

invoices, with regard to project 1 (Aditya), be made directly by

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 5

Hindalco (to whom the respondents used to supply) to the Appellant.

Accordingly, a joint meeting was held on 17th January, 2015

(mentioned as 16th Jan in the email) between both parties and

Hindalco and other vendors. In the said joint meeting accounts were

reconciled by all the parties and it was also agreed that balance

payment to the Appellant shall be released by Hindalco directly from

the Respondent's performance acceptance test invoice. It was also

agreed that the Appellant shall submit performance bank guarantees

(hereinafter referred to as "PBG") to the respondent and the same

shall be confirmed by the respondent to Hindalco upon receipt of

PBG before release of final payment. The respondent vide their

email dated 28th January, 2015 to the Appellant recorded the

discussions in the said meeting as well as attached an accounts

statement for Project 1 (Aditya) showing an amount of Rs.

3001985.21 as due and payable to the Appellant after deducting

debit notes of Rs 683668/-. It is pertinent to note that the minutes of

the meeting dated 17th January 2015 clearly mentions that though

Hindalco had technical issues with other vendors but had no

technical issues with the Appellant. Thus an amount of Rs.

3001985.21 was due and payable to the Appellant without dispute.

f) 19-02-2015 - The Appellant informed the respondent that they

intend to submit PBG for project 1 and requested to confirm whether

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 6

the respondent has completed all the formalities with Hindalco and

that Hindalco has agreed to pay directly to the Appellant so that the

Appellant can submit PBG and in return Hindalco pay Rs. 30 Lakhs

after deducting debit notes worth Rs. 683668/-. In response, the

respondent vide their email dated 19th February, 2015 again

reiterated that payment of Rs. 30.1 Lakhs shall be made by Hindalco

towards project 1 directly to the Appellant after submission of PBG

(which was submitted on 23-03-2015). In the said email, the

respondent attached the minutes of meeting dated 17th January, 2015

(erroneously mentioned as 17th January, 2014) and accounts

statement for both the projects. As per the respondent's accounts

statement and its own admission a sum of Rs. 57,54,910.50/- was

due and payable by the respondent to the Appellant. However, the

respondent unilaterally debited as sum of Rs. 2845757/- (Rs.

683668/- towards Project 1 and Rs. 2162089/- towards project 2)

towards debit notes including Rs. 15 lakhs for Rubber belt warrantee

for project 2. Even after deducting the amounts of debit notes for

both the projects, an amount of Rs. 3510600.68 was still due and

payable to the Appellant.

g) 14-03-2015 & 19-03-2015 - The Appellant vide their email dated

14th march, 2015 informed the respondent that they are going ahead

with PBG preparation for Project 1 and asked the Respondent to

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 7

confirm the PBG amounts as stated in the said email which were

confirmed by the respondent vide its reply dated 19th march 2015.

h) 23-02-2015 - PBG was submitted vide letter dated 23rd march, 2015.

i) 03-07-2015 - Respondent vide their email dated 03-07-2015 to

Hindalco gave its consent to release an amount of Rs. 508615.47/-

to the Appellant. Alongwith the said email the respondent forwarded

statement of account which clearly shows that an amount of Rs.

508615.47 was due and payable to Appellant after deducting debit

notes worth Rs. 2162089/- for project 2 including Rs. 15 lakhs

towards rubber belt. Therefore, even after considering debit notes of

Rs 2162089/- an amount of Rs. 508615.47/- was undisputedly

payable to the Appellant.

j) 04-07-2015 - Hindalco vide their email dated 04-07-2015 forwarded

the respondent's email dated 3rd July, 2015 along with its

attachment, i.e. statement of account to the Appellant and informed

that the respondent has agreed on Hindalco paying directly to the

Appellant and whether the same is acceptable or not to the

Appellant. This accounts statement shows debit notes of Rs.

2162089/- for project 2 which includes Rs. 15 lakhs towards rubber

belt. Therefore, even after considering debit notes of Rs. 2162089/-

an amount of Rs 508615.47/- was undisputedly payable to the

Appellant.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 8

k) 03-09-2015 - In response to Hindalco email dated 04-07-2015, the

Appellant wrote to the respondent that the debit amounts shown by

the respondent that the debit amounts shown by the respondent in

the accounts statement were not acceptable to the appellant as the

debit notes of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards damage to the conveyor

rubber belt was due to improper erection and operation of conveyor

by the respondent. As per the terms of LOI's and PO's, erection and

commissioning of belt conveyors was not within the Applicant's

scope of work and the erection of belt conveyors was done by the

respondent. As the erection of belt conveyors was not done properly,

the respondent started to notice that the belts were damaging. In this

behalf, the respondent addressed several emails to the appellant

requesting to deploy the services engineering of the appellant or

Hindustan Rubber Industries (HRI) and look into the problem. It is

pertinent to note that warranty of the rubber belt lapses on account

of damage caused to the rubber belt due to improper alignment of

conveyors structure. However even after deducting the amounts of

debit notes including Rs 15 Lakhs for rubber belt for project 2, an

amount of rupees 508615/- was due and payable to the Appellant.

l) 07-01-2016 - Hindalco vide email dated 7th January, 2016 (with

copy to the respondent) once again informed the Appellant that they

have held back the final payments for long and hoped that the

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 9

Appellant has settled issues with the Respondent. Hindalco further

informed that they are releasing respondent payment as the

respondent has promised to settle appellant accounts of Rs. 508615/-

for project 2 (after deducting debit notes worth Rs. 2162089/-) after

getting payments from Hindalco. Even after considering debit notes

of Rs. 508616.47 was undisputedly payable to the Appellant.

m) 09-01-2016 - In response to Hindalco email dated 7th January, 2016,

the Appellant on 9th January, 2016, the Appellant on 9th January,

2016 informed Hindalco that an amount of Rs. 5026043/- has to be

recovered from the respondent (after deducting debit received from

respondent) for both the projects. The appellant further requested

Hindalco to hold respondent payment for Rs. 2025043/- for project

2 and release the same to the appellant.

n) 09-01-2016 - Hindalco vide email dated 9th January, 2016 informed

the appellant that they won't be in position to hold respondent

payment contractually. Hindalco at best can pay directly to the

Appellant subject to confirmation from the respondent, however

there is no such confirmation from the respondent. Hindalco also

informed that they have already processed respondent case.

o) 13-01-2016 In response the Appellant once again informed Hindalco

to hold Respondent payment and release the same directly to the

appellant.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 10

5. It is also stated by the Appellant that in spite of having received the goods,

when the balance payments were not forthcoming from the respondent

despite various reminders by the appellant and assurances by the

respondent, the appellant was constrained to issue a statutory demand

notice dated 5th February, 2016 under Section 433 and 434 of the

Companies Act, 2013 for the outstanding amount of Rs. 56,60,203/- along

with interest at the rate of 27% to be compounded on monthly basis from

due date of payment till actual date of payment within three weeks of the

date of the notice. Since the respondent failed to comply with the said

statutory notice dated 5th February, 2016 hence the appellant filed a

Company Petition (L) No. 960 of 2016 in the Bombay High Court for

winding up the respondent company. The same was transferred to National

Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, pursuant to the amendment in

Companies Act, 2013 and the introduction of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The case stood abated due to failure of appellant

to abide by the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

6. It is further stated by the appellant that on 14th February, 2018 the

respondent replied to applicant's statutory notice dated 3rd February, 2018,

inter alia, taking an incorrect plea that the statutory notice was false and

frivolous, without any cogent reason. Thus with no option left to avail the

Appellant herein filed an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 11

Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai vide Company petition

2825/IB/MB/2018 against the respondent for initiation of corporate

insolvency resolution process, due to non-payment of said debt.

7. The Appellant argued that all the invoices were duly accepted by the

respondent without any demur. As agreed between the parties the payment

of the said invoices were required to be made by the respondent on or

before the due date as mentioned in the LOIs/POs.

8. The Appellant reiterate that for the period 2011 to 2013, a sum of Rs.

56,58,764/- (plus interest) still remains due and payable by the Corporate

Debtor to the Appellant towards the said aforesaid invoices. Even if the

debit notes of Rs. 2845757/- for both the projects is considered by the

respondent, still an amount of Rs 3510600.68 is due and payable to the

Appellant as admitted by the respondent.

9. It is further stated by the Appellant that Form 3 had issued by the appellant

to the corporate debtor on 3rd February, 2018. The principal amount

claimed by the operational creditor in its Form 3 was Rs. 56,58,764/-. The

said amount of Rs. 56,58,764/- was arrived at based on the individual

purchase orders raised during the relevant period. However, upon

reconciling its accounts, the operational creditor found that an excess

amount of Rs. 37,501/- had been paid by the Corporate Debtor against an

old order. Thus, the operational creditor, after setting off the excess amount

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 12

of Rs. 37,501/- against the amount claimed in Form 3, is now claiming an

amount of Rs. 56,21,572/-.

10.It is submitted by the respondent that despite repeated oral reminders and

written reminders (via email) sent by the appellant requesting the

respondent to pay the outstanding amount due and payable by them under

aforesaid mentioned invoices, the Respondent failed to pay the said

amounts due, which have accumulated to a sum of Rs. 56,21,572/-.

11. It is further submitted by the Appellant that having agreed to pay the

amount against the supplies, the respondent is now seeking to resile making

payments, by raising frivolous and baseless grounds to create a 'dispute'

under the I&B Code.

12.It is argued by the Appellant that NCLT has erroneously sought to place

reliance on one email alone issued by the petitioner to hold that there were

disputes existing between the parties i.e. email dated 03.09.2016 wherein

the appellant wrote to respondent that the debit amounts shown by the

respondent in the statement were not acceptable since the debit notes of Rs.

15,00,000/- was also not acceptable as the damage to the conveyor belt was

due to improper erection and operation of conveyor.

13.It is also further argued that the said email dated 03-09-2015 was in

response to email dated 04-07-2015 from Hindalco to the appellant. An

account statement showing an amount of Rs. 508615.47 due and payable

to appellant after deducting debit notes of Rs. 21,62,089/- was also annexed

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 13

to the said email from Hindalco. Hindalco had received this accounts

statement from respondent vide their email dated 03-07-2015 and the same

was forwarded to appellant. As per the terms of LOIs and POs, erection

and commissioning of belt conveyors was not within the appellant's scope

of work and the erection of belt conveyors was done by the respondent and

as the erection of the conveyors was not done properly, the respondent

started to notice the belts were damaging. In this behalf the respondent

addressed several emails to the appellant requesting to deploy the service

engineering of the appellant or Hindustan Rubber Industries (HRI) and

look into the problem. It is pertinent to note that warranty of the rubber belt

lapses on account of damage caused to the rubber belt due to improper

alignment of conveyor structure. However even after deducting all the

debit notes Rs. 30,01,985.21 for project 1 and Rs. 5,08,615.47 for project

2 (total Rs. 35,10600.68/-) was due anjd payable without any dispute.

14. The Appellant finally submitted that NCLT, without considering that the

debt was already admitted by the respondent and that no real 'dispute'

under the IBC Code existed between the parties, dismissed the petition

filled by the Appellant solely on the ground that dispute had been raised by

the respondents. The view taken by the NCLT, if allowed to prevail, would

lead to closing of rights of operational creditors on sham and bogus

defences being raised by the respondents, which is not the aim or intention

of I&B Code.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 14

15. Respondents filed their reply and rebutted in brief as under: -

16.That the appellant has admitted vide its advocate that the respondent had

raised a dispute under its email dated 16th September, 2014. Further, it is

pertinent to note that the Respondent's email dated 16th September, 2014

states that the belts at both the projects had sheared.

17.That the admission by the appellant's advocate before NCLAT is

particularly important as it conflicts with the Appellant's submission of the

Company appeal that "vide previous communication exchanged between

the parties, the issue of disputes with relation to the supplies were never

raised, when the respondent clearly had an occasion to do so. Even when

the issue was raised it was not in the form of quality issue as the same has

arisen due to rubbing of the rubber belt against the conveyor structure

erected by the respondent, as mentioned in the mails dated 29th march,

2014 and 23rd may, 2014, which was not within the scope of the

appellant's work."

18.That further the appellant's reliance of emails dated 29th march, 2014 and

23rd may, 2014 are incorrect and misplaced as the supervision of erection

of the belts was within the appellant's scope of work. Further as is evident

from the respondent's email dated 29th march, 2014 there were other issues

that were unresolved by the appellant in addition to the rubbing of the

rubber belt against the conveyor structure.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 15

19.That appellant's advocate has further represented to the NCLAT that the

dispute raised by the respondent under its email dated 16 th September,

2014 was settled by the minutes of meeting dated 17th January, 2015 and

confirmed under email dated 19th February, 2015. The respondent submits

that the appellant has omitted to inform NCLAT that the minutes of

meeting dated 17th January, 2015, pertains only to the full and final

settlement amount being agreed by the parties in relation to Project 1 only

and does not deal with Project 2 at all.

20.Further the respondent submits that the appellant has omitted to inform

NCLAT that the minutes of meeting dated 17th January, 2015 was an

acceptance of the fact that Hindalco had taken over the liability of payment

of dues to the appellant which had been accepted by the appellant resulting

in a novation of contract and discharge of the respondent's liability towards

the appellant for project 1. This novation of contract is also mentioned and

accepted by all the parties as is apparent under the emails dated 19 th

February, 2015. Therefore, the respondent submits that there is a valid

dispute as regards the liability of the respondent towards the appellant as

the appellant itself has accepted under the minutes of meeting dated 17th

January, 2015 and the emails dated 19 th February, 2015, that there is a

novation of contract and it was Hindalco who was liable to the Appellant.

21.That the Adjudicating Authority has correctly concluded in paragraph 12

of its order that there was a "pre-existing dispute" between the parties.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 16

Therefore, the appellant had failed to prove that this was a fit case for

summary insolvency proceedings under the code hence, the NCLT

correctly rejected the appellant's Company Application.

22.That the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 7 of its order, correctly relies

on the emails which are evident that the debt payable to the appellant being

novated and agreed to be paid by Hindalco directly to the Appellant leading

to a new contract between the parties. This new agreement between the

parties contemplated that the payment would be made by Hindalco directly

to the Appellant and the same was accepted by the Appellant. Therefor the

appellant's averments that the primary responsibility of the debt being the

respondent were considered by the adjudicating authority and rejected.

23.That additionally, in paragraph 7 of the order, the adjudicating authority,

further correctly relies on the respondent's email dated 3 rd July, 2015 as

evidence that the respondent had conveyed its consent for Hindalco to

directly release a sum of INR 5,08,615 to the Appellant for full and final

settlement of the Appellant's dues for Hindalco's Mahan project in

Madhya Pradesh.

24.That the Adjudicating Authority correctly concludes that the rejection of

the respondent's full and final settlement offer by the Appellant's own

dated 3 rd September, 2015, proved that "the dispute were no settled and

persisted even after the agreement and were brought to the notice of the

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 17

Operational Creditor before the receipt of demand notice and in the reply

of the Corporate Debtor to the demand notice of the Operational Creditor".

25.That the records clearly indicate that the respondent had been in dispute

with the appellant since 2014 in relation to the quality of the belts supplied

by the Operational Creditor and at every opportunity, had raised the dispute

with respect to the bad quality of services rendered by the appellant as well

as appellant's inability to complete its services contracted for within the

time prescribed under the LOI and the Purchase Order. The Respondent

states that there has been a complete failure on the part of the Appellant to

supply the belts as expected under the terms of the LOI and purchase Order.

26. That the Appellant admits in the Affidavit-in-Rejoinder dated 11th

January, 2019, that the belt supplied by it were damaged. The appellant

raised the spurious defence that the belt conveyors were damaged on

account of the improper alignment of conveyance structure which is falsely

alleged as being outside the appellant's scope of work under the LOI and

the Purchase Orders.

27. That Hindalco withheld the payment due to the respondent on account of

the actions of the appellant, causing enormous financial hardship. In fact,

Hindalco and the respondent were engaged in litigation in relation to

amounts payable with respect to services of the respondent to Hindalco for

the project wherein Hindalco had relied on the Appellant's actions as

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 18

explained herein to indicate negligence and lack of quality of services by

the respondent towards Hindalco for the projects.

28.After hearing the parties, the NCLT, Mumbai passed the order. Thereby

rejected the petition on the ground of pre-existing dispute.

29.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. We are of

the opinion that the adjudicating authority have erred in rejecting the

application by solely relying on the email correspondence without taking

into the merits of the matter and acceptance of debt by the respondent.

In 'Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., the Hon'ble

Supreme Court while discussing the provisions of Section 9 observed as

follows:

"34. Therefore, the adjudicating authority, when examining an

application under Section 9 of the Act will have to determine:

(i) Whether there is an "operational debt" as defined exceeding Rs. 1

lakh?

(ii) Whether the documentary evidence furnished with the application

shows that the aforesaid debt is due and payable and has not yet been

paid? and

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 19

(iii) Whether there is existence of a dispute between the parties or the

record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before

the receipt of the demand notice of the unpaid operational debt in

relation to such dispute?

NCLT wrongly applied the principle enshrined in the aforesaid case to the

present facts. The judgement of Mobilox clearly stipulated that the disputes

in a case ought to be real disputes and that it is the duty of the adjudicating

authority to bifurcate between the two.

30. Adjudication authority failed to consider that the respondent has sought to

confuse matters by relating to prior correspondence, in fact that it was the

liability of the respondent and that the respondent under an arrangement

with the said M/s Hindalco Industries Limited had intended to clear the

dues to the Appellant. The said arrangement was seemed to be made to run

away from the obligation to pay the debt by the respondent as Hindalco

could not hold respondent's payment contractually and also Hindalco can

pay directly to the Appellant subject to confirmation from the Respondent,

however there is no such confirmation from the respondent.

31.Adjudicating authority failed to consider that respondent has sought to shift

the liability from itself to Hindalco Industries Limited to make payment to

the appellant with a view to deny the appellant of its legitimate dues. The

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019 20

defence raised by the respondent is not genuine and an after-thought merely

to evade making payments of the liabilities under the purchase orders to

the appellant.

32.For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order dated 02nd April,

2019 passed in C.P. No. 2825/(IB)/MB/2018 and remit the case to the

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai Bench to admit the application and pass

appropriate order in presence of the parties. All the plea taken by the

parties, having discussed no further opportunity of hearing is required to

be given to any of the parties for admission the application under Section

9 of the I&B Code.

33.However, it will be open to the respondent to settle the claim before

admission of the application under Section 9. In such case, the appellant

may withdraw the application before its admission. The appeal is allowed

with the aforesaid observations. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

(Justice Venugopal M) Member (Judicial)

(Justice Jarat Kumar Jain) Member (Judicial)

(Mr. Balvinder Singh) Member (Technical) New Delhi

bm

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No.508/2019