Naresh Tradelink Pvt Ltd vs Optus Laminates Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No.585 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The imposition of costs in an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be sustained where the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application on the ground that the unpaid amount falls below the statutory threshold; the reasoning that the applicant has not defaulted to the extent required does not, without more, warrant a penal cost order. Where the corporate debtor has already been admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on another creditor's application, the appellant whose Section 9 application was rejected is entitled to file its claim in that process, and that avenue is open to it notwithstanding the rejection of its own application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Naresh Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant
Vs.
Optus Laminates Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Anoop Rawat, Ms. Shally Bhasin, Mr. Saurav Panda, Mr. Prateek Gupta, Ms. Arushi Chandra, Ms. Rashi Sharma and Ms. Rachna Dubey, Advocates for R-3
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
22.3.2024 - This Appeal has been filed against Order dated 24th January 2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which Section 9 Application filed by Appellant has been rejected with cost of Rs.5 Lakhs. It is submitted that Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that amount left unpaid remains only Rs.86,52,112/- which is less than threshold, hence the Application rejected. It is submitted that subsequent on the next date, i.e. on 25th January, 2024, Corporate Debtor has already been admitted to the CIRP on an application filed by another Operational Creditor. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant confine his Appeal to the question of imposition of the cost of Rs.5 lakhs only.
The Adjudicating Authority having found that amount left unpaid was less than the threshold, the application was not entertained. We see no reason to impose a cost of Rs.5 lakhs on the Appellant. The imposition of cost by the Order dated 24th January, 2024 needs to be deleted. In so far as Section 9 Application, the Appellant - Corporate Debtor have already been admitted in CIRP. We dispose this Appeal with directions to delete the cost of Rs.5 Lakhs. We further 2
make it clear that it shall be open for the Appellant to file its claim in the CIRP of Corporate Debtor which has been admitted in Order dated 24th January, 2024.
The Appeal is disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) rs/nn Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No.585 of 2024
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