Indiana Gratings Pvt. Ltd vs Conceptual Equipments & Services Pvt. ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 404 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the corporate debtor raised a dispute before the operational creditor issued its demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and that dispute is pending, there is an existence of dispute, and an application under Section 9 of the Code is not maintainable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Indiana Gratings Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Conceptual Equipments & Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Amar Dave and Ms. Aastha Mehta, Advocates
ORDER
27.07.2018 From the record we find that there was pre-existing dispute
prior to issuance of Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, 'the I&B Code') issued by the 'Operational
Creditor'. The Adjudicating Authority by impugned order dated 18th May, 2018
has taken note of the same while referring to the dispute relating to change of
make of the manufacturer as well of steel, is pending since 2nd June, 2015. The
dispute relating to weight difference and invoices, is pending since 4th May, 2015.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant referred to letter
issued by the 'Corporate Debtor' dated 19th November, 2015 to submit that the
'Corporate Debtor' has accepted the claim but in the said letter the 'Corporate
Debtor' has made it clear that false invoices have been raised and false facts has
been recorded in the ledger account of the 'Financial Creditor', with a bad
intention to snatch away more amount illegally. In the said letter, it is also
informed that Rs.30,60,000 has already been paid by the 'Corporate Debtor'
which has not been taken into account.
-2-
Taking into consideration the fact that the 'Corporate Debtor' has raised
the dispute much prior to issuance of notice under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code,
we agree with the Adjudicating Authority that there is an 'existence of dispute',
and therefore application under Section 9 was not maintainable.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/uk/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 404 of 2018
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