Pappu Raja Kannan vs Sri Ramajayam Spintext Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 511 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against admission of a Section 9 application, holding that the absence of an agreement between the parties does not defeat a claim arising from supply of goods, since a supply of goods does not require the parties to have reached an agreement; the appeal was otherwise found to lack merit and the delay of 12 days was condoned.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mr. Pappu Raja Kannan ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Sri Ramajayam Spintext Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. K.S. Mahadevan and Ms. Swati Bansal, Advocates.
O R D E R
24.05.2019─ 'M/s. Sri Ramajayam Spintext Private Limited'-
('Operational Creditor') filed an application under Section 9 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short) before the
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Division
Bench, Chennai, for initiation of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process' against 'M/s. Sethuram Spinners Private Limited'- ('Corporate
Debtor'). The same has been admitted by the impugned order dated 26th
February, 2019.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that
there was no agreement reached between the parties to supply any goods.
However, such submission cannot be accepted, as for supply of goods it
is not necessary that the parties must reach an agreement.
Contd/-.............
-2-
3. It is not in dispute that the Respondent earlier asked for money
pursuant to which a blank cheque bearing No. 559949 given to one Mr.
P.R. Rajendraraja who is a relative to the 'Operational Creditor' and not
as a payment for the hank yarn.
4. According to the Appellant, it is not in dispute that pursuant to the
demand notice issued under Section 8(1) of the 'I&B Code', the 'Corporate
Debtor' had not filed any reply disputing the claim.
5. On the other hand, the Respondent- ('Operational Creditor') filed
an application under Section 9 in Form 5 showing details of the debt and
default.
6. For the reasons aforesaid and other grounds shown therein, while
we condone the delay of 12 days in preferring the appeal, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical) Ar/g
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 511 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