Mukesh Agarwal vs Rqs Engineering Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 263 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an operational creditor's Section 9 application is resisted on the ground of a pre-existing dispute, a bare assertion in a reply to the demand notice, or an uncorroborated account of a meeting, does not establish a pre-existing dispute where the debtor's own conduct is inconsistent with it: the issue of post-dated cheques for the invoiced amounts, with a request that they be presented to the bank, is incompatible with a claim that the goods were rejected for quality, and the debtor's failure to communicate any dispute about the supplies in its reply to the demand notice tells against the existence of such a dispute.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 263 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mukesh Agarwal ...Appellant
Versus
RQS Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Neela Gokhale, Ms. Shradha Agrawal and Mr. Ilam Paridi, Advocates
For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Ms. Chetna Bisht, Advocates
ORDER
09.09.2019 The 'RQS Engineering Private Limited' (Operational Creditor)
filed an application under Section 9 of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 (for short, 'the I&B Code') for initiation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process' against 'Thermo Products Private Limited' (Corporate Debtor). The
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench,
Mumbai, by impugned order dated 21st February, 2019 having admitted the
application, the said order has been challenged by the Director/Shareholder of
the 'Corporate Debtor'.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is a 'pre-existence
of dispute' and the Adjudicating Authority has failed to consider the same.
Reliance has been placed on the reply to the notice under Section 8(1) sent by
the 'Operational Creditor'.
2
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to the minutes of the meeting
dated 28th November, 2017, wherein it was mentioned that the materials
supplied by the 'Operational Creditor' were rejected as they were not suitable for
the 'Corporate Debtor'. Reliance has been placed on an e mail dated 17th
November, 2017 and the reply of the said email given by the 'Operational
Creditor' by letter dated 23rd November, 2017 to suggest that there is a 'pre-
existing dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent (Operational Creditor) disputed the
facts and submitted that the materials were accepted by the 'Corporate Debtor'
and were never returned back as no request was made for replacement. On the
other hand, the 'Corporate Debtor' issued post dated five (05) cheques on 20th
November, 2017; 21st November, 2017; 23rd December, 2017; 23rd December,
2017 and 23rd December, 2017 which were bounced.
5. Referring to the aforesaid cheques, it was intimated that the cheques have
been issued on 23rd December, 2017. It is clear that meeting, if any, held on
28th November, 2017 is an afterthought.
6. From the record, we find that the Demand Notice under Section 8(1) was
issued by the 'Corporate Debtor' in Form 3 issued on 8th May, 2018 referring to
Invoice No. 570 dated 20th September, 2017 for Rs.19,47,000/-; Invoice No. 574
dated 21st September, 2017 for Rs. 19,47,000/-; Invoice No. 654 dated 23rd
October, 2017 for Rs.19,47,000/-; Invoice No. 656 dated 23rd October, 2017 for
Rs.19,47,000/- and Invoice No. 657 dated 23rd October, 2017 for Rs.19,47,000/-
(Total Rs. 97,35,000/-).
7. In reply to the same, the 'Corporate Debtor' by letter dated 18th June, 2018
has replied that in the meeting held on 28th November, 2017, the 'Corporate
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 263 of 2019 3
Debtor' had rejected the material as it was not suitable for them. However, it
was accepted that the 5 post-dated cheques bearing Nos. 001803, 001804,
001805, 001806 and 001807 dated 26th April, 2018; 26th May, 2018, 26th June,
2018; 26th July, 2018 and 26th August, 2018 each for a sum of Rs.19,47,000/-
were issued with the request to the 'Operational Creditor' that they could show
the same to the Banker and get the advance payment as claimed. Thus, we find
that there is no communication by the 'Corporate Debtor' to 'Operational
Creditor' about the 'pre-existence of dispute'. If there was a quality difference,
then there was no question of issuing post-dated cheque dated 26th April, 2018
while giving reply to the notice under Section 8(2). The said post-dated cheques
have also been bounced and 'Operational Creditor' has no other option but to
file the application, which has rightly been admitted by the Adjudicating
Authority.
We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/nn/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 263 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