Leo Creations Pvt Ltd vs Asr Logistics India Pvt Ltd

IN THE MATTER OF: Leo Creations Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus ASR Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Ms. Oshin Maggu & Mr. Aryan Nagpal, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Mohil Chaudhary, Mr. Raghav Dikshit & Mr. Nakshtra Shandilya, for R-1. Mr. Rishi Singhal, Mr. Anurag Goel, for R-2/ IRP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)]

21.07.2025 This appeal is directed against the order dated

08.03.2024 by which an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency

& Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code') by Respondent No. 1 against the

Corporate Debtor, namely, M/s Leo Creations Pvt. Ltd. for the resolution of

an amount of Rs. 6,47,780/- along with 18% interest per annum has been

admitted.

2. In brief, the application under Section 9 was filed by the Operational

Creditor after the notice was issued under Section 8 of the Code on

31.10.2018. According to the Operation Creditor, the Corporate Debtor was

liable to pay a sum of Rs. 13,97,780/- on the basis of 10 invoices which was

raised for the period between 13.07.2016 to 31.10.2018. The said invoices

are reproduced as under :-

3. Learned Tribunal has found that the Corporate Debtor has already

paid Rs. 7,50,000/- out of Rs. 13,97,780/-, therefore, the application was

filed by the Operational Creditor for a sum of Rs. 6,47,780/-.

4. The application was admitted and Shri Anurag Goel was appointed as

the IRP who was ordered to be paid Rs. 1 Lakh by the Operational Creditor.

5. Aggrieved against the order of admission, the present appeal has been

filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor.

6. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that since the application

under Section 9 was filed on 30.10.2019, therefore, six invoices i.e., dated

13.07.2016, 17.08.2016, 17.08.2016, 09.09.2016, 09.09.2016 and

20.10.2016 were all time barred in view of Article 137 of the Limitation Act,

1963 as the application under Section 9 was filed after three years on

30.10.2019.

7. He has further submitted that four invoices were within the period of

limitation which were raised by the Operational Creditor on 31.10.2016. It is further submitted that if the amount of the four invoices is calculated

then it would come to Rs. 1,30,447/-.

8. It is further submitted that the Learned Tribunal has erred in not

taking into consideration the payment already made by the Corporate

Debtor on 15.05.2016, 16.06.2016, 18.06.2016 of a sum of Rs. 86,250/-,

Rs. 18,597/-, Rs. 22,545/- which comes to Rs. 1,27,392/- and had only

taken into consideration the payment made by the Appellant on 05.08.2016,

22.08.2016, 23.09.2016, 26.09.2016 & 29.03.2017 of Rs. 2,50,000/-

Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- which comes to

Rs. 7,50,000/- and has been deducted out of the total outstanding of

Rs. 13,97,780/- while admitting the application filed by the Operational

Creditor for a sum of Rs. 6,47,780/-.

9. It is submitted that if Rs. 1,27,392/-, having been paid on

15.05.2016, 16.06.2016 & 18.06.2016, is also taken into consideration and

deducted out of the total outstanding of the four invoices raised on

31.10.2016, then the balance amount would reduce to less than Rs. 1 Lakh

i.e., less than the threshold limit provided in Section 4 of the Code and

hence, the application under Section 9 could not have been filed and

maintained.

10. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent could not deny the fact that the

amount having been paid by the Appellant is reflected in his own ledger

dated 01.04.2016 to 29.03.2017 which is also reproduced as under :-

11. In such circumstances, we have no doubt in our mind that the

Learned Tribunal has committed an error in not taking into consideration

the evidence brought on record by the Appellant in regard to the amount

already paid to the extend of Rs. 8,77,392/- out of which if Rs. 7,50,000/-

is deducted then it comes to Rs. 1,27,392/- which has to be taken into

consideration while setting off the amount having been paid by the

Corporate Debtor.

12. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in admitting the

application against the Appellant. The appeal is thus allowed and the

Impugned Order is set aside.

13. At this stage, Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 has

submitted that the Operational Creditor is liable to pay not only the fee of

the IRP but also the expenses incurred by him during this period.

14. In this regard, we observe that Respondent No. 2 may avail his

remedy in accordance with law by filing an appropriate application before

the Tribunal.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Sim/RR