Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Laxmichand Bansidhar, Forbesganj vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal7 May 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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 190 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

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