Magneto Home Pvt. Ltd vs Conclave Infratech Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1201 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A pre-existing dispute between the corporate debtor and the operational creditor, raised by the corporate debtor before the demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was issued, and supported by the corporate debtor's communication that the supplied goods were damaged, is a ground for rejecting an application under Section 9 of the Code; whether the defect or dispute is substantiated is not to be determined at the admission stage of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Magneto Home Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs
Conclave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Arvinder Singh Chauhan and Mr. Vinod Chaurasia, Advocates. For Respondent:
ORDER
11.11.2019: Having heard leaned counsel for the Appellant and being
satisfied of the grounds delay of 3 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
I. A. No. 3515 of 2019 stands disposed of.
2. The Appellant filed application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'I&B Code') for initiation of Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process against 'Conclave Infratech Pvt. Ltd.' (Corporate
Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad by impugned order dated 18th
September, 2019 rejected the application on the ground of pre-existing dispute.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the
Respondent admitted the liabilities and in support of his submission referred to
page 372, which is reply to the petition.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1201 of 2019 -2-
4. However, from the record we find that it has been noticed by the
Adjudicating Authority that by email dated 3rd April, 2018 i.e. prior to issuance
of the demand notice under Section 8(1), the Corporate Debtor intimated the
Appellant issues relating to quality of the goods that the supplied items were
damaged by attaching photographs.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that only nine photographs
were attached by the Respondent out of 343 items. But such issue cannot be
determined in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process while admitting an
application under Section 9 of the I&B Code.
6. There being a pre-existing dispute between the parties, the application
under Section 9 was rightly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority in absence
of any merit. The appeal is disposed of with aforesaid observations. No costs.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1201 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