Pankaj Agarwal vs Hvr Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 482 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority may admit an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 where the existence of debt and default is established and the debt exceeds the statutory threshold; disputes as to the quantum of the claimed amount, including the admissibility of a debit note, are matters to be decided at the stage of collation and verification of claims and do not by themselves vitiate admission. A plea that the corporate debtor has not been served notice under Section 8 is not sustained where the Adjudicating Authority has returned a finding that notice was served, the debtor has filed a reply on the merits, and the appellate forum finds no material warranting interference with that finding.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Pankaj Agarwal ...Appellant
Versus H.V.R. Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Manish Raghav, Advocate For Respondent: Ms. Swati Sood, Advocate for R-1 Advocate Rajni Prakash, for R-2
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
02.05.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 10th March, 2022. By which Order, the Application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Code') has been admitted.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the amount which was admitted by the Appellant was only Rs. 3,10,789/- and there was dispute with regard to the rest of the amount claimed by the Appellant. It is submitted that debit note which is claimed by the Operational Creditor was never admitted and further there was no service of Notice under Section 8 of the Code.
3. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
4. The Adjudicating Authority has relied on the fact that 'Debt' and 'Default' is admitted to the Appellant when the 'Debt' and 'Default' is admitted and debt is more than the threshold. We do not find any error in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting the Application under Section 9 of the Code.
2 5. The submissions that the Debit Note is not admitted and the amount claimed cannot be Rs. 55,02,334/- are the questions which can be decided at the time of the collation and verification of the claim. We do not find any error in the admission of the Application under Section 9 of the Code.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he is still ready to pay the admitted amount. It is for the Appellant to approach the Operational Creditor for Settlement, if any.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly submits that notice under Section 8 of the Code has not been served and he submits that for the finding that he has shifted, there is no material to prove and support that finding. The finding is returned by the Adjudicating Authority that Notice has been served. The Reply has already been filed on the merits by the Appellant which was considered and after hearing the parties, the Order has been passed. On this ground, we are not satisfied that there is any ground to interfere with the Impugned Order.
With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 482 of 2022
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