Ramesh Murji Patel vs Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1447 of 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
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