Swastik Enterprises vs Hajee A.P. Bava & Company Constructions ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 505 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Section 9 application under the I&B Code is met with a dispute as to whether any amount remains payable, and the debt and default are in doubt on the material before the court, the application is rightly rejected, because the question whether further interest or sums are due cannot be decided in a petition under Section 9.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hajee A.P. Bava Company Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. G.K. Jain, Chartered Accountant
For Respondent : Mr. Sunav Rastogi, Advocate
ORDER
27.09.2018 The 'Operational Creditor' filed an application under Section
9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
'I&B Code') for initiation of 'corporate insolvency resolution process' against the
respondent 'Hajee A.P. Bava & Company Constructions Pvt. Ltd'. The
respondent on appearance brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru that the
outstanding amount which was due to the 'Operational Creditor' was offered a
sum of remaining amount Rs. 8,03,317/- which they refused to accept. In this
way, the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order dated 11th July, 2018
while rejected the application directed the respondent to pay the remaining
amount of Rs.8,03,317/- if it is already not paid. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant submits that there was no document on record about
payment of any amount and the appellant denied the claim of Rs. 46,69,915 as
was demanded by demand notice dated 11th January, 2018. No settlement has
been arrived at for the same. Reliance has been placed on the impugned order 2
to submit that the wrong statement has been made which has been accepted
that a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was paid without interest.
Pursuant to the earlier order, the respondents filed additional affidavit
enclosing the copy to suggest that the amount of Rs. 8,03,317/- has already
been paid in the account of the appellant. The appellant in its pleadings has
also so accepted. The amounts were remitted in the bank through RTGS initially
for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on 16th March, 2018 and another sum of Rs. 15 lakhs
was remitted on 28th March, 2018. Apart from this Rs. 20 Lakhs, further amount
of Rs. 8,03,317/- has been deposited by respondent pursuant to the order of the
Adjudicating Authority. Thus, total amount of Rs. 28,03,317/- has already been
deposited in the account of the appellant. Now the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant raised the question of interest but it cannot be decided
whether any further amount is payable or not in a petition under Section 9. In
the aforesaid background, there being a doubt about 'debt and default', the
Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application under Section 9 of the
I&B Code. We find no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/uk/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 505 of 2018
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