Novacare Healthcare Solutions ... vs Max Healthcare Institute Limited

Novacare Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad BF, Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr. Vijay K. Sharma and Mr. Tishampati Sen, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.01.2024: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has

been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated

22.11.2023 rejecting Section 9 application filed by the Appellant. Appellant

has filed petition as an Operational Creditor claiming an operational debt of

Rs.1,02,20,129/-. The Adjudicating Authority noticed that the Purchase

Orders were issued by different hospitals. The three associated companies

have different CIN and separate assets and liabilities. It was held that by

clubbing the claims which were issued against different entities, the Applicant

sought to fulfil the threshold of Rs.1 Crore. The Adjudicating Authority held

that the claim cannot be clubbed, hence, rejected the Section 9 application.

In Para 4 of the impugned order following has been held:

"4. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Applicant and the Respondent as well as perusing the record, contention by the CD that all the three

Cont'd.../ -2-

associated companies of CD have three different CIN, separate assets and liabilities stands right. Similarly, the claims of OC against other entities of CD, Max Super Specialty Hospital, Max Smart Super Specialty and Max Super Specialty Hospital are situated at two different places, namely, Saket and Patparganj. The Petitioner has purposefully, in order to bring the company claim within threshold limit clubbed the claims against different entities of the Corporate Debtor and filed the present company petition which is not maintainable in law."

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the debt was

acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor which is parent entity of all three

hospitals, hence, the application ought not to have been rejected.

3. We have considered the submission of the Appellant and perused the

record.

4. When separate Purchase Orders were issued by the three hospitals, as

noted in the order and invoices were also issued separately, the mere fact that

parent company of the three hospitals is same, the Appellant cannot club all

the invoices and try to complete the threshold by claiming debt of

Rs.1,02,20,129/- whereas with regard to each invoice threshold is not

complete, as observed by the Adjudicating Authority in Para 4. We see no

reason to interfere with the impugned order rejecting Section 9 application.

The Appeal is dismissed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.49 of 2024 -3-

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent that

Appellant has already initiated proceedings for these claims by way of a Civil

Suit, hence, there is pre-existing dispute also.

Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.49 of 2024