Paramjeet Singh vs Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd. & Another
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 150 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an operational creditor's notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has been served and the corporate debtor neither disputes the claim nor replies within ten days under Section 8(2), an application under Section 9 that records no objection having been filed is maintainable, and the Adjudicating Authority may admit it where no specific evidence of a pre-existing dispute is placed on record. An appellate challenge to an order admitting a Section 9 application cannot succeed on a bare assertion of dispute, unsupported by specific evidence, where the corporate debtor has failed to raise the dispute in the statutory response under Section 8(2); the court declines to decide the genuineness of a contested document in that posture.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Paramjeet Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd. & another ...Respondents
Present:
For Appellant : Shri Pankaj Khetan, CS
For 1st Respondent: Ms. Gargi R. Vyas, Advocate
For 2nd Respondent : Shri Subrahmanyam and Shri Ankur Singhal, Advocates
20.11.2017 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Paramjeet
Singh, Director of M/s. International Coil Limited against order dated 16th
August, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal), Special Bench, New Delhi in (IB)-120(PB)/2017 whereby and
whereunder the application preferred by the respondent (Financial Creditor)
under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'I&B Code') has been admitted, order of moratorium has been
passed and the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) has been appointed.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there
is an existence of dispute and brought on record certain letter in support of such
claim. However, aforesaid plea taken by the appellant has been objected by the
learned counsel for the respondent. According to respondent the letter is forged
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 150 of 2017 1 for which the appellant is liable for punishment. It is further submitted that the
respondent has received a letter from M/s. Mundra Solar Power, Adani informing
that no such letter was issued in favour of the appellant. However, in this appeal
we are not deciding the question whether document is forged one or not for the
reasons mentioned below.
Admittedly, operational creditor issued notice under sub-section (1) of
Section 8 of I & B Code to the Corporate Debtor; in spite of receipt of the such
notice, the Corporate Debtor had not disputed the claim nor submitted any reply
under sub-section (2) of Section 8 within a period of ten days. It was in the
aforesaid circumstances application under Section 9 was filed in Form 5,
wherein it was specifically mentioned that 'no objection has been filed by
Corporate Debtor' under sub-Section (2) of Section 8. In the aforesaid
circumstances and in absence of any specific evidence brought on record, we are
not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 16th August, 2017.
We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] [ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member(Judicial) Member (Judicial)
/ns/uk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 150 of 2017 2
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