Siddhivinayk Enterprises vs Popular Steel Works And Agricultural ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Siddhivinayk Enterprises ...Appellants Versus Popular Steel Works and Agricultural ...Respondents Implements Pvt. Ltd.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Punjabi, Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Ms. Shweta Bhagchandani, Mr. Vijay Sharma and Mr. Saurav, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Vedant Singh, Mr. Rohit Mangsula, Mr. Vishisht Singh and Mr. Vansah Kalra, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.11.2025: Heard counsel for the appellant as well as Counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by Adjudicating Authority by which Section 9 application filed by the appellant has been rejected. Appellant filed Section 9 petition on 28.04.2020 for an default amount of Rs. 1,50,18,466.63/- principal amount being only Rs. 98,02,475.45/-. The company petition was adjourned from time to time issue of threshold was raised that the company petition does not fulfilled the threshold. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has dismissed the Section 9 application. The Adjudicating Authority held that an application is not maintainable in view of provision 4(1) of the IBC and further there is a reluctance and procrastination adopted by the petitioner.

3. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order relies on the consent terms which was entered on 09.09.2023 and 10.07.2024 in which and appellant and other sister concern were parties with the corporate debtor. It is submitted the under the said consent terms the corporate debtor has undertaken to make the payment of amount and hence the said amount became the operational debt and corporate debtor was obliged to make payment. It is submitted that on the consent terms, the Section 9 application was filed by the sister concern was withdrawn under Section 12A of the IBC pursuant to the consent.

4. We have perused the Section 9 application filed by the appellant in part-IV of the Section 9 application the date of default is mentioned as 15.05.2017 application having been founded on date of default we are not persuaded to accept any other date as claimed by the appellant that the consent terms subsequently entered between the parties. Admittedly, application was filed under Section 9 in April, 2020. The Part-IV mentioned the principal amount as Rs. 98,02,475.45/- and although interest was claimed but there is no substantiation of the record as how the interest entitlement was there.

5. We are of the view that Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the application on not meeting the threshold. It is however observed that it shall be open for the appellant to take such remedy as available in the law with regard to dues, if any.

With these observations, we dismiss the appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1633 of 2025