Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Roma Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd vs A. S. Iron & Steel (I) Pvt. Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal22 April 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A party that has advanced money to another for the supply of goods, where it has itself supplied no goods or services to that party, holds a claim that is not an "operational debt" within the meaning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and an application under Section 9 founded on such a claim is not maintainable.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 223 of 2019 IN THE MATTER OF: Roma Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant Vs. A.S. Iron & Steel (I) Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Gautam Bajaj and Mr. Rohan Chawla, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Alok Dhir, Ms. Varsha Banerjee and Ms. Juhi Bhambhani, Advocates for CD. ORDER

22.04.2019: The Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of I&B

Code against M/s A.S. Iron & Steel (I) Pvt. Ltd. which has been rejected by

impugned order dated 23.01.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant paid the

amount of Rs. 74,32,326/- for supply of goods by the Corporate Debtor. The

goods having not been supplied the present application under Section 9 was

filed. According to him, there is no pre-existing dispute.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent (Corporate

Debtor) submitted that the goods were supplied as far back as in 2014,

therefore, the claim is barred by limitation. However, we are not concerned with

the aforesaid question as to whether the goods were supplied or not.

4. Admittedly, Appellant - Roma Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd. has not

supplied the goods nor provided any services to Respondent- A.S. Iron & Steel

(I) Pvt. Ltd. It advanced payment of Rs. 74,32,326/- to Respondent for supply

of goods. In view of the aforesaid fact, the payment cannot be treated to be an

'Operational Debt' and the application under Section 9 filed by the Appellant

was not maintainable. Accordingly, no relief can be granted. -2-

5. However, the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal or Adjudicating

Authority will not come in the way of Appellant to moved before the court of

Competent Jurisdiction for appropriate relief. The appeal is dismissed with

aforesaid observations. No cost.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A.I.S Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) sa/gc

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 223 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