Kjmc Corporate Advisors (India) Ltd vs India Steel Works Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 593 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that where the corporate debtor, in reply to the operational creditor's demand, disputes the existence of any mandate or commitment to pay the claimed professional fees, a pre-existing dispute regarding the amount claimed is shown to exist, and that the operational creditor's subsequent admission of the dues by the corporate debtor does not cure the defect so as to permit an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to be entertained.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: KJMC Corporate Advisors (India) Ltd. ...Appellant Vs India Steel Works Ltd. ....Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Ganda and Ms. Shreya Jain, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Ms. Anne Mathew and Mr. Saurabh Chaudhary, Advocates.
ORDER
23.04.2019: This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant (Operational
Creditor) against order dated 30th July, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench whereby the
application under Section 9 preferred by the Appellant has been rejected on the
ground of pre-existing dispute and res-judicata.
2. Earlier on 27th September, 2018, when the matter was taken up, learned
counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is no pre-existing dispute between
the parties and the question of application of principle of res-judicata does not
arise.
3. On notice the Respondent has appeared and referred to letter dated 14th
July, 2015 (at page 435, Volume III of the appeal) wherein pursuant to letter
dated 2nd July, 2015 and Provisional Debt Note dated 16th June, 2015 for -2-
Rs.1.38,51,000/-, the Corporate Debtor intimated the Operational Creditor that
there was no any understanding or mandate or any oral commitment from their
end for payment of any professional fees to KJMC Corporate Advisors (India) Ltd.
i.e. Appellant herein. From the said letter it is clear that there is a pre-existing
dispute about the amount claimed by the Appellant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that
subsequently they have admitted the dues but that cannot be a ground to
entertain application under Section 9 of IBC, which can be decided by competent
court in view of aforesaid letter.
5. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
(Kanthi Narahari) Member (Technical) am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 593 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