Tiger Logistics India Ltd vs Jaguar Overseas Limited

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, Principal Bench, New Delhi Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 582 of 2021 IN THE MATTER OF: Tiger Logistics (India) Ltd. ...Appellants Vs. Sanjay Gupta ....Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Kshitij Mudgal, Advocate

For Respondent: Ms. Sheyl Trehan, Mr. Karan Mehra, Mr. Raghav Anand, Advocates

ORDER

10.08.2022: Heard Mr. Kshitij Mudgal, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and

Ms. Sheyl Trehan, learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. The present appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') has been filed by the

Appellant/Operational Creditor for setting aside an order dated 27.04.2021

passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as 'Adjudicating Authority'). By the impugned order, the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the application filed by the Appellant

under Section 9 of the Code as not maintainable on the ground that the Appellant

does not meet the threshold limit of default as set out by notification dated

24.03.2020 issued under Section 4 of the Code.

3. The core issue in the present appeal is as to whether an application filed

under Section 9 of the Code after the cutoff date i.e. 24.03.2020, whereby

pecuniary jurisdiction was enhanced from Rs.1 lakh to Rs. 1 Crore, can be

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 582 of 2021

1 entertained. Admittedly in the present case, on the date of filing of application

under Section 9 of the Code, the pecuniary jurisdiction was already enhanced.

In this case, default claim amount only is Rs. 24 lakhs and odd.

4. On 02.08.2022, the Appeal was earlier taken up, however, it was

adjourned on the request of the Ld counsel for the Appellant to satisfy the court

regarding earlier judgment of this Tribunal on the issue involved.

5. Ld. Counsel for Appellant after going through the judgments passed by

this Tribunal on the same issue was not in a position to distinguish this case

from other cases decided by this Tribunal in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 497/2021 - M/s

Gupta Exim (India) Pvt Ltd vs. M/s Knitcraft Apparels International Pvt Ltd and

CA (AT)(Ins) No. 813 of 2021 in Jumbo Paper Products Vs. Hansraj Agrofresh

Pvt. Ltd. It has already been held that threshold limit is to be seen on the date

of filing of application under Section 9 of the Code. In view of the notification

dated 24.03.2020 issued under Section 4 of the Code, the pecuniary limited from

Rupees One Lac to Rupees One Crore was enhanced. Admittedly the default

claim in the application of appellant was of Rupees Twenty-four lac and odd and

as such the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in rejecting

the same.

6. Considering the fact that the Appeal was filed after amendment whereby

the pecuniary jurisdiction was enhanced, the court is of the opinion that no

favorable order can be passed in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal

stands dismissed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 582 of 2021

2 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) Raushan/GC

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 582 of 2021

3