Raghu Rama Krishna Raju vs Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not a valid basis for an application under Section 9 where, before the demand notice was issued, the corporate debtor had raised a dispute over the outstanding dues by notice to the operational creditor, such that a pre-existing dispute subsisted at the time of the application; an application founded on such a notice is not maintainable and the order admitting it cannot stand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mr. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju ...Appellant Versus Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Ltd. ...Respondent
Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aniridh Wadhwa and Mr. Bharagav Thali, Advocates
For Respondents : Ms. Mitali Daryani and Mr. Anush Raajan, Advocates for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Nakul Sachdeva and Mr. Aakarshan Sahay, Advocates for Respondent No. 2
Mr. C.A. Sinha, Ms. Sonali Khanna and Ms. Sylona Mohapatra, Advocates for 'Committee of Creditors'
Mr. Goutham Shivshankar and Sourabh Agarwal, Advocates for impleaded respondent
Mr. Sanjay Bajaj, Advocates for 'Financial Creditors'
Me. Nakul Sachdeva, for RP
Mr. Chitranchul Sinha and Ms. Sonali Khanna, Advocates for 'CoC'
With
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 553 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju ...Appellant 2
Versus
Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Ltd. ...Respondent
Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aniridh Wadhwa and Mr. Bharagav Thali, Advocates
For Respondents : Ms. Mitali Daryani and Mr. Anush Raajan, Advocates for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Ashish Prasad and Mr. Sanyam Saxena, Advocates for R.P.
Mr. Goutham Shivshankar and Sourabh Agarwal, Advocates for impleaded respondent
Mr. Sanjay Bajaj, Advocates for 'Financial Creditors'
ORDER
30.01.2019 In both the appeals as the appellant/shareholder is common
and common question of law is involved, they were heard together and disposed
of by this common order.
2. 'M/s. Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Limited' (Operational Creditor -
respondent in 'Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 of 2018') filed an
application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for
initiation of 'corporate insolvency resolution process' against 'M/s. Ind Barath
Power Gencom Limited' (Corporate Debtor) which was admitted by the impugned
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 & 553 of 2018 3
order dated 7th September, 2018 is under challenge in 'Company Appeal
(AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 of 2018'.
3. Another application under Section 9 was filed by 'M/s. Gandhar Oil
Refinery (India) Limited against M/s. Ind-Barath Thermal Power Limited (the
other Corporate Debtor) in 'Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 553 of 2018'
and it was also admitted by the impugned order dated 7th September, 2018.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) submits that there
are 'pre-existing dispute' in both the cases and thereby the application(s) under
Section 9 were not maintainable. It is further submitted that the appellants are
settling the claim with 'M/s. Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Limited' in both the
appeals.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 'Operational Creditor' while
disputed the ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is
a 'pre-existing dispute' and submitted that the parties have settled the claims in
both the appeals.
6. 'Resolution Professional' in both the appeals have appeared, filed their
affidavits giving details of the steps taken by them and the fee and cost incurred
by them. The 'Committee of Creditors' in both the appeals has also appeared.
7. From the record we find that there is a pre-existing dispute in respect of
'M/s. Ind-Barath Power Gencom Limited' (Corporate Debtor) of 'Company Appeal
(AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 of 2018'. In the said case, demand notice under Section
8(1) was issued on 30th October, 2017 but prior to the same, the 'Corporate
Debtor' had issued a notice to the 'Operational Creditor' for act of deceit and
dispute on the outstanding dues', which reads as follows:
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 & 553 of 2018 4
8. In other case, M/s. Ind-Barath Thermal Power Limited (the other
'Corporate Debtor) in 'Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 553 of 2018' the
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 & 553 of 2018 5
demand notice was issued on 25th October, 2017. However, prior to the same
notice for act of deceit and dispute on the outstanding dues was issued by the
'Corporate Debtor' on 27th September, 2017, which reads as follows:
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 & 553 of 2018 6
9. In view of the fact that there was a 'pre-existing dispute' in both the cases,
we hold that the application preferred by 'M/s. Gandhar Oil Refinery (India)
Limited' against 'M/s. Ind-Barath Power Gencom Limited' (Corporate Debtor) and
'M/s. Ind-Barath Thermal Power Limited' (the other 'Corporate Debtor') were not
maintainable. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders dated 7th
September, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in the respective appeals.
The parties having settled the matter, they are bound by the 'Terms of
Settlement' and will act accordingly and it should be treated as a direction of this
Appellate Tribunal. Insofar as other creditors are concerned, we are not
expressing any opinion. They may act in accordance with law. The 'Committee
of Creditors' of respective appeals are directed to decide the fee and resolution
cost incurred by respective 'Resolution Professionals' preferably within two
weeks and communicate to the respective 'Corporate Debtors'. The 'Corporate
Debtors' will pay the cost and fees and the cost incurred for resolution process
by respective 'Resolution Professionals'. If the cost have been paid to the
'Resolution Professionals' by the 'Committee of Creditors', as informed, then the
'Committee of Creditors' will inform the respective 'Corporate Debtors', the cost
incurred towards the 'resolution fee' and 'resolution process' and the respective
'Corporate Debtors' will pay the amount to the 'Committee of Creditors' within
30 days thereof.
10. If any application of the 'Financial Creditor' or 'Operational Creditor' has
been dismissed on the ground of these appeals, they may file a fresh application
before the Adjudicating Authority, after notice to the 'Corporate Debtors' in view
of the order passed by us.
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 & 553 of 2018 7
11. Both the appeals stand disposed of with aforesaid observations and
directions. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/uk/
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 & 553 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