Surendra Trading Company vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 189 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, must be supported by evidence of debt and default; where the applicant's enclosures do not establish either, the application is not maintainable and the Adjudicating Authority is right to reject it. A certificate dated 2004 does not constitute evidence of default, and margin bills that bear no signature of the issuing authority of the Corporate Debtor cannot be treated as evidence of debt or default. Where the claimed outstanding dues fall due before 2004 and no evidence of debt is produced, the operational creditor's claim cannot sustain an application under Section 9.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Surendra Trading Company ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. (now known as Geo Jute Limited) & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal and Mr. Udit Malik, Advocates.
For Respondent:- Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta and Ms. Henna George, Advocates for R1. Mr. Gaurav Kejriwal and Mr. Atanu Mukherjee, Advocates for R2. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, Mr. Karan Khanna and Mr. Ankit Kohli, Advocates for R3.
ORDER
07.05.2018- Prima facie there is nothing on the record to suggest that
the Appellant enclosed any evidence of debt or default in their
application under Section 9 (Form-5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "I&B Code"). A certificate of the
year 2004 (Page 259) cannot be termed to be an evidence of default. Rest
of the enclosures are the margin bills which have already been noticed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) and
come to a conclusion that the margin bills alleged by the Company
cannot be treated as evidence of debt or default. Those marginal bills do
not have any signature of the issuing authority of the 'Corporate Debtor'. -2-
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Respondent
submits that earlier the claim of the Appellant was not accepted by this
Appellate Tribunal in an appeal preferred by the 'Corporate Debtor' in
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 09 of 2017, against which the
Appellant claimed to be an 'Operational Creditor', moved before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, who allowed the Appellant to remove the
defects. However, even thereafter, the Appellant could not enclose any
document of debt.
3. In the present case, as we find that the outstanding due as
claimed by the Appellant is prior to 2004 and in absence of evidence of
debt, the application under section 9 of the 'I&B Code' was not
maintainable. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the
application.
4. In absence of any merit. The appeal is dismissed. No cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk
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