Pinrui Overseas Ltd. N.V vs Zicom Electronic Security Systems Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 443 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal against rejection of an operational creditor's Section 9 application was dismissed. The reasoning rests on the following principle: where the corporate debtor, before the Adjudicating Authority, has raised an objection that the operational debt is disputed, a later settlement claimed by the operational creditor does not displace that objection, so the existence of a dispute as of the date of the application stands and the application cannot be admitted under Section 9.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Pinrui Overseas Ltd. N.V. ...Appellant
Versus
Zicom Electronic Security Systems Ltd. ...Respondent
Present:
For Appellant : Mr. S. Ravishankar and Ms. Yamunah Nachiar, Advocates
ORDER
10.08.2018 The appellant 'Pinrui Overseas Ltd. N.V.S.' (Operational
Creditor) preferred an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I&B Code') which has
been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal) Mumbai Bench by impugned order dated 9th April, 2018 on the ground
of 'existence of dispute'.
2. From the record, we find that e-mail was communicated on 3rd June, 2016
by which the respondent communicated the defects in the manufacturing of the
goods and pointed out that 'Lan connector' get faulty; pin is made by copper
which is getting corrosion and for the said reason installer has not installed the
same.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that
whatever dispute has in existence was settle by the parties subsequently but
such submission cannot be accepted as respondent has raised the objection 2
before the Adjudicating Authority and, therefore, it cannot be held that the
matter may settle between the parties.
4. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/gc/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 443 of 2018
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