Millenium Electronic vs True Power International Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 846 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
For the purpose of the minimum threshold under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the principal amount and the interest claimed may both be aggregated to determine whether the threshold is met. Where an operational creditor claims interest as part of the debt but the operational debt has been confirmed only in respect of the principal amount, and no agreement between the parties is placed on record showing that interest was agreed upon, the operational creditor cannot establish the claimed interest component, and the application fails to satisfy the threshold requirement on that basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Millenium Electronics Through its partner Vineet Goyal ...Appellant
Versus
True Power International Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Guha, Advocate
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
13.05.2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2024 by which
Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant has been dismissed. The notices
were issued in the Appeal but no one has appeared for the Respondent.
The Application was filed by the Operational Creditor praying for
amount of Rs. 1,90,53,746/- out of which Rs. 64,72,424/- was principal
amount and the remaining amount of Rs.1,25,81,322/- was interest. The
Adjudicating Authority, after hearing the applicant observed that the
Appellant could not explain how the amount of interest could be arrived,
which observations have been made in paragraph 9 of the Order.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that confirmation which
was given only for principal amount. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has
referred to judgment of this Tribunal in Prashant Agarwal Vs. Vikash
Parasrampuria 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 3781.
We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the
record.
There can be no dispute to the preposition laid down by this Tribunal
in Prashant Agarwal (supra) that for purposes of threshold both interest
and principal can be added.
The present is the case were Appellant could not prove that how the
interest has been arrived when confirmation was only for the principal, no
agreement between the parties was placed to show that interest was agreed
upon.
We thus, do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority
rejecting the application on ground of not fulfilling the threshold. We make it
clear that rejection of Section 9 Application shall not preclude the Appellant
to take such other remedy available in law for the amount. Appeal is
dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 846 of 2024 2 of 2
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