Shuchi Sharma vs M.P. Mining & Energy Limited

Shuchi Sharma ...Appellant

Versus

M.P. Mining and Energy Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Present but appearance not marked. For Respondent:

ORDER

25.11.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has

been filed against order dated 24.08.2022 by which order Section 9 application

filed by the Appellant was rejected. Appellant claiming to be the Operational

Creditor filed Section 9 application with the case that Appellant has issued a

purchase order on 26.06.2017 and advanced Rs.23 Lakh, out of which Rs.10

Lakh was returned and still there is balance amount of Rs.13 Lakhs. The

Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that it

is case which has been collusively filed and Corporate Debtor, Appellant and

proprietor of M/s Space Traders were all closely related to each other. In Para

9 of the judgment following observations have been made:

"9. No doubt, on 22.01.2018 and 31.03.2018 an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was stated to be returned by the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor, whereas the invoices pertain to

Cont'd.../ -2-

13.02.2018 and 27.02.2018. In this context, it is also worthwhile to mention that the cancellation, if any, has not come from a due authority, as the cancelation must have been made by Ms. Shuchi Sharma herself or under the due Authority by her husband Mr. Manu Sharma. No such Authority letter of Power of attorney has been placed on record to establish the fact that Mr. Manu Sharma was ever duly authorised to look into day-to-day affairs of M/s Delta Business System. Hence, the said cancellation being without any authority is non-est in law. Moreover, Mr. Puneet Jain i.e. the Director of Respondent/ Corporate Debtor was none-else, but son of Mr. Vijay Jain (who is proprietor of M/s Space Traders) and also brother of Ms. Shuchi Sharma. Hence, all Mr. Vijay Jain, Ms. Shuchi Sharma, Mr. Puneet Jain and Mr. Manu Sharma are closely related to each other and this petition appears to have been filed in collusion with one another, in order to defraud the creditors, that too, when already the material worth Rs.18,70,890/- had been dispatched by the Corporate Debtor to M/s Space Traders."

2. Present is a case where the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected

the Section 9 application. The application under Section 9 cannot be filed for

the purposes of recovery of money. Present is a clear case filed for recovery of

amount of Rs.13 lakhs advanced by the Appellant, which is outstanding

according to the Appellant. Further in view of the observation of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1420 of 2022 -3-

Adjudicating Authority that all parties were closely related and application has

been filed in collusion with one another, it is sufficient ground for rejecting the

application. We do not find any merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1420 of 2022