Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ramesh Murji Patel vs Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal16 December 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, an operational creditor's application is not defeated by the fact that the debt includes amounts exceeding a contractual credit limit where it is undisputed that the debt is payable to the operational creditor, exceeds the threshold, and remains unpaid. An authorisation letter issued before the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 may be looked into for the purpose of entertaining an application under Section 7 or Section 9 of the Code, and its pre-commencement date does not by itself render the application unauthorised.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1447 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

Ramesh Murji Patel ...Appellant

Vs

Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Narender S. Yadav and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocates. For Respondents:

ORDER

16.12.2019: 'Aramex India Pvt. Ltd.' (Operational Creditor) filed application

under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter

referred to as 'I&B Code') pursuant to which by impugned order dated 22nd

October, 2019 the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),

Mumbai Bench -IV initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against

'Salelink Ecom Private Limited' (Corporate Debtor). Appellant has challenged the

same.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the

Operational Creditor was no obliged to honour any consignment handed over to

the Operational Creditor once the credit limit of Rs.1 Lakh was exhausted. Any

amount in excess of the said sum of Rs.1 Lakh, which was the credit limit in

terms of the Client Services Agreement dated 14th July, 2016 was at the risk of

the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor cannot be held responsible

for the same.

-2-

3. However, such submission cannot be accepted as it is not disputed that

the debt is payable to the Operational Creditor, which is more than Rs.1 Lakh

and there is default in making payment.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant then submitted that the application

under Section 9 was not signed by the authorised person as the Authorisation

was done in the year 2013 by the Operational Creditor. According to him such

2013 authorization would not be justified for filing an application under Section

9 as Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has come into force since 1st December,

2016.

5. However, such submission cannot be accepted as Authorisation Letter,

even if, issued prior to the enactment of I&B Code can be looked into for purpose

of entertaining an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Code.

6. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial) am/gc

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1447 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