Jai Prakash Bansal vs Agarwal Alloys & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where the operational creditor has enclosed the ledger account, a confirmation of accounts by the corporate debtor, and a demand notice under Section 8(1), and the corporate debtor has not raised any objection before the demand notice was issued, the Adjudicating Authority is entitled to find that no pre-existence of dispute exists and to admit the application. The absence of a document or demand notice in support of the claim is not made out where the application itself encloses the relevant documents, and an Adjudicating Authority that does not call for further production does not thereby err in admitting the application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Jai Prakash Bansal ...Appellant
Versus
Agarwal Alloys & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Kalia and Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Advocates
ORDER
04.02.2019 This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant - 'Jai Prakash
Bansal - Shareholder' of 'Dayal Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor)
against order dated 29th November, 2018 whereby the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench admitted the application
under Section 9 filed by Agarwal Alloys (Operational Creditor).
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there
was no document or demand notice in support of the claim. The Adjudicating
Authority did not ask to produce the same and passed the impugned order. He
further submits that the 'corporate debtor' has disputed the claim. However, it
is not in dispute that the 'corporate debtor' has not raised any objection prior to
the Demand Notice issued under Section 8 (1) of the I&B Code.
3. From the application under Section 9 (Form 5), we find that the
'operational creditor' has not only enclosed the ledger account but also enclosed
the 'confirmation of accounts' of the 'corporate debtor' dated 22nd August, 2015
and the Demand Notice dated 15th November, 2016. Thereafter, the 'corporate 2
debtor' having failed to pay the amount due, the Demand Notice under Section
8(1) was issued on 14th September, 2017. The Adjudicating Authority having
noticed the same and there being no pre-existence of dispute, admitted the
application under Section 9 of the I&B Code.
4. We found no illegality in the impugned order. In absence of any merit, the
appeal is dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/uk/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2019
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