Satec Envir Engineering (India) Pvt vs Waaree Energies Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 762 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the operational creditor's Section 9 application is met by a dispute over the debt that was raised by the corporate debtor before the operational creditor's demand notice was issued, the existence of that prior dispute is a ground on which the Adjudicating Authority may refuse to admit the application. Where the corporate debtor's later acceptance of the claim is premised on its contention that the document was issued on wrong premises, the question whether the debt is due and what the claim and counter-claim of the parties are cannot be determined by the Adjudicating Authority in Section 9 proceedings, and it is not an error for the Authority to decline to adjudicate them.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Satec Envir Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs
Waaree Energies Ltd. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Chitnis and Mr. Aaditya Pande, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi and Mr. Yash Badkur, Advocates.
ORDER
07.12.2018: The Appellant (Operational Creditor) filed an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against 'M/s Waaree Energies Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench by impugned order dated 5th October, 2018 rejected the application on the ground of existence of dispute.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant while explaining the delay of 11 days in preferring the appeal submitted that the Corporate Debtor having accepted the dues, dispute raised prior to same cannot be taken into consideration.
3. From the record we find that in terms of one agreement purchase order was issued on 8th March, 2017 and purchase order was cancelled on 7th March, 2018. The Corporate Debtor disputed the claim of debt raised on 27th March, 2017, that is much prior to the demand notice issued by the Appellant. In view of the fact that Corporate Debtor has already raised a dispute on 27th March, 2017, we hold that the Adjudicating Authority rightly refused to entertain the application under Section 9.
-2- 4. In so far as subsequent acceptance by Respondent (Corporate Debtor) is concerned as they took plea that it was issued on wrong premises, these issues cannot be determined by the Adjudicating Authority. We hold that the Adjudicating Authority rightly did not determined the question of claim and counter claim of the parties.
5. In the circumstances, while we condone the delay of 11 days in preferring the appeal, in absence of any merit we dismiss the appeal.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial) am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 762 of 2018
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