Sunil Inderlal Sharma vs M/S Arora Iron & Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1306 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the operational creditor's claim has been paid by the corporate debtor before the demand was made, and that payment is shown by bank records not placed before the Adjudicating Authority, the Section 9 application admitting the claim cannot stand; the Tribunal may set aside the admission order and decline to permit the corporate insolvency resolution process to continue, since no purpose would be served by it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1306 of 2022 In the matter of: Sunil Inderlal Sharma ....Appellant Vs. Arora Iron & Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta and Ms. Henna George, Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents:
ORDER
15.12.2022: This appeal has been filed by the Suspended Director of the
Corporate Debtor challenging the order dated 28.10.2022 by which order
Section 9 application has been admitted. Section 9 application was filed for
principal amount of Rs. 5,59,673/- alongwith the interest.
2. When this appeal was taken, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
submits that the payment has already been made prior to the demand which
fact has not been brought on the notice of the Adjudicating Authority. On
02.11.2022 we pass the following order:-
"Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that
the Adjudicating Authority admitted Section 9 Application
filed by the Operational Creditor for an amount of Rs.
5,59,673/-. It is submitted that the Appellant has taken
over the Corporate Debtor and when he came to know
that there are debts, the same was paid on 19.01.2021
which fact has not been brought on the notice of the
Adjudicating Authority by the Operational Creditor. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1306 of 2022 1 Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to Bank
Statement which evidences the payment. Submissions
need scrutiny.
2. Let 'Notice' be issued to the Respondents
through 'Speed Post'. Let the requisites together with
process fee be filed within three days from today. The
Appellant is required to provide the e-mail address of the
Respondents and in that mode also, the service can be
effected. The Appellant is also required to furnish the
Mobile No. of the Respondents to the 'Office of the
Registry'.
3. Let Reply be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder,
if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
4. List this Appeal on 15.12.2022.
In the meantime, the impugned order dated
28.10.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall
remain stayed".
3. Notices have already been issued to the Respondent but no-one has
appeared for Respondent.
4. Noticing the submissions of the Appellant that payment has already
been made, we have also looked into the Bank Statement at page-53 which
indicate the Bank payment to the Operational Creditor on 19.01.2021.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1306 of 2022 2 We, thus, are of the view that no purpose shall be served in permitting
the CIRP to continue.
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 28.10.2022 is set aside.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1306 of 2022 3
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