Laxmichand Bansidhar, Forbesganj vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 190 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority is correct to reject an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 where the applicant, claiming to be an operational creditor, places on record no evidence of the debt beyond marginal bills and certificates issued by Company Secretaries, since such marginal bills of the corporate debtor cannot be treated as evidence of the applicant's debt. Where the existence of a debt is disputed and there is no record establishing that a debt is payable by the corporate debtor to the applicant, the application under Section 9 cannot succeed and the rejection of it is not to be interfered with on appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Laxmichand Bansidhar, Forbesganj ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited (now known as Geo Jute Limited) ...Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 191 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ganpati Traders, Forbesganj ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited (now Known as Geo Jute Limited) ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal and Mr. Udit Malik, Advocates.
For Respondent:- Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta and Ms. Henna George, Advocates.
ORDER
07.05.2018- These appeals have been preferred by the Appellants, who
claimed to be 'Operational Creditors' against the order(s) dated 10th
April, 2018, whereby and whereunder the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal) rejected the application preferred by -2-
the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 (hereinafter referred to as "I&B Code').
2. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
records, we find that except marginal bills and certificates given by the
Company Secretaries, no other evidence have been brought on record
by the Appellants before the Adjudicating Authority in support of the
debt. The Adjudicating Authority rightly held that marginal bills of the
'Corporate Debtor' cannot be treated to be an evidence of debt of the
Appellants. In absence of any record of debt and as there is a dispute as
to whether any debt is payable by the Respondents in favour of one or
other Appellants, we hold that the Adjudicating Authority rightly
rejected both the applications.
3. We have noticed that in one of the cases a Civil Suit No. 500/2017
is pending on some of the common issues, but we are not deliberating
of such issue in the present appeals.
4. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order(s). As these appeals are devoid of merit, they are
accordingly dismissed. No cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk
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