Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Sandeep Dipak Chatterjee vs Fr Tech Innovations Pvt Ltd. Through Its ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal3 February 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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 192 of 2020IN THE MATTER OF:

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