Sandeep Dipak Chatterjee vs Fr Tech Innovations Pvt Ltd. Through Its ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 192 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned a 15-day delay in filing the appeal on the appellant's bare statement that he had no knowledge of the impugned order, and dismissed the appeal on the merits on the ground that default had admittedly occurred on a specified date in an amount exceeding the threshold, so that the claimed investment fell within the meaning of "financial debt" and the submission to the contrary could not be accepted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sandeep Diipak Chatterjee ...Appellant
Versus
FR Tech Innovations Private Limited Through its Resolution Professional Dr. Arun Mohan & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Anjaneya Mishra, Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz and Mr. Nidish Gupta, Advocates.
For Respondents:
ORDER
03.02.2020 This Appeal has been preferred by Sandeep Dipak
Chatterjee, 42% Shareholder of FR Tech Innovations Private Limited
('Corporate Debtor') against order dated 14th November, 2019 passed by the
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench.
By the impugned order, the Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short the 'I&B Code') filed by Mr. Karan
Lalwani ('Financial Creditor') was admitted.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant had no
knowledge of the impugned order dated 14th November, 2019 and therefore,
there is a delay of 15 days. We accordingly condone the same. Interlocutory
Application No.477 of 2020 stands disposed of.
3. Again on the same ground, the Appellant submitted that it had no
knowledge of the impugned order dated 14th November, 2019 and the same
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 192 of 2020 Page 1 of 2 was passed without giving any opportunity to the 'Corporate Debtor'.
However, from the impugned order we find that one Mr. Sumit Agarwal along
with Mr. M. Rajguru, Advocates appeared on behalf of the 'Corporate Debtor'.
4. Next it was argued that other Shareholder, who appeared connived
with Mr. Karan Lalwani. However, in absence of any better cause, we are not
inclined to accept such submission.
5. It is not in dispute that the 'Corporate Debtor' committed default on
26th December, 2018 in making payment of Rs.1,13,01,328/- including
interest. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the submission
that the investment made by the Respondent does not come within the
meaning of 'Financial Debt'. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
Ash/GC
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 192 of 2020 Page 2 of 2
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