Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Surendra Trading Company vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal7 May 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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 189 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

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