J. Technologies India Ltd vs Jura It Solutions Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 378 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal by the corporate debtor against an order admitting an operational creditor's Section 9 application is not maintainable, following the Supreme Court's decision in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank (as cited by the Tribunal, at paragraph 11 of that decision), which the Tribunal treats as governing that question. Where a corporate debtor does not raise a dispute relating to the goods or services, or the quality of goods or services, before the notice under Section 8(1) is issued, a plea that the dispute concerns only the quantum of payment does not defeat an operational creditor's application under Section 9 where it is accepted that an amount is due and unpaid.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
J. Technologies India Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
Jura IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. S.S. Ganesh Raja, Advocate.
ORDER
23.07.2018- This appeal has been filed by the Appellant ('Corporate
Debtor') against the order dated 19th June, 2018 passed by the
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Single Bench,
Chennai, whereby and whereunder the application under Section 9 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "I&B
Code") preferred by the Respondent- 'Jura IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.'-
('Operational Creditor') has been admitted, order of 'Moratorium' has been
passed and the name of the 'Interim Resolution Professional' has been
called for.
2. Apart from the fact that the appeal at the instance of the 'Corporate
Debtor' is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court at Paragraph 11 in "M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI
Bank & Anr.─ 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1025", we also find that there is no
merit in this appeal for the reasons as mentioned below.
Contd/-.................
-2-
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that
there is an existence of dispute but from the records we find that no
dispute relating to goods or quality of service were raised by the 'Corporate
Debtor' prior to issuance of notice under Section 8(1) of the 'I&B Code'.
4. It is also submitted that the dispute relates to quantum of payment.
However, it is accepted that a sum of more than Rs. 54 lakhs is payable,
which has not been paid.
5. In that view of the aforesaid admitted fact, the appeal is fit to be
dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 378 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