Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar ... vs Nimbus Packaging Llp And Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh ...Appellant Versus Nimbus Packaging LLP & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Biswas and Mr. Harshit Gupta, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for R-2.

Mr. Milan Singh Negi and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Ajinkya Kurdukar, Advocate for R-2/RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

25.11.2024 : Heard Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 11.01.2024 passed

by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal,

Mumbai Bench - IV) in C.P. (IB) No.860/MB-IV/2023, admitting Section 9

Application filed by the Operational Creditor for principal amount of Rs.

1,73,52,033/- with interest of Rs. 23,45,951/-.

3. The Appeal has been filed by Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar

Sangh challenging the Order. Appeal was heard on several occasion and this

Tribunal has not stayed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)

and only observation was made that CIRP shall abide by the result of the

Appeal. Resolution Professional (RP) has filed the Status Report submitting that claims have been received by the Secured Financial Creditor, Unsecured

Financial Creditor workman and employees.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the proceedings were

initiated for merely Rs.1.73 Crores which was a meagre amount with regard

to a Company which has Asset of hundreds of Crores. It is submitted that

there was no substantial opposition by the Corporate Debtor and only

financial difficulties were stated before the Adjudicating Authority which is

noted in Paragraph 10.

5. We have considered the submissions of Counsel for the Appellant and

Respondent as well as Counsel for the RP and perused the record.

6. The Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order has returned a

finding that the debt is not denied and no Pre-Existing Dispute between the

Parties brought on the record. Paragraph 10 refers to the financial difficulties

stated by the Corporate Debtor. Paragraph 10 of the Order is as follows:

"10. The Corporate Debtor submits that due to certain unforeseen circumstances, it was unfortunately thrust into severe financial difficulties, involving inter alia the freezing of its bank accounts and a resultant cash flow crisis. Hence, even despite its best intentions, it has been unable to pay the sums that remain due and payable to the Applicant in respect of the said Invoices. The factum of cash-flow crisis being faced by the Corporate Debtor, was in fact duly conveyed to the Applicant vide the Respondent's emails dated 17 November 2022 and 29 December 2022."

7. Although, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that process

was initiated by the Operational Creditor in collusion with the Corporate

Debtor but we do not find any material or sufficient pleadings on the record

to come to the conclusion that proceedings were initiated in collusion with the

Promoters.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 180 of 2024 2 of 3

8. Learned Counsel for the RP submits that total claim is more than

Rs.1,000 Crores, which have been received and the CIRP is in the process.

Learned Counsel for the RP further submits that workman and employees

have also filed their claims of Rs.450 Crores which is under consideration.

9. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the

Order impugned. It goes without saying the claims filed by the workman and

the employees shall be considered in accordance with law.

10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to raise certain other grounds

which are not germane at this stage and need no consideration at this stage.

With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 180 of 2024 3 of 3