Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Trade Affairs vs Borkar Colorpacks Pvt. Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal18 March 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the corporate debtor, before the operational creditor issued its demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has communicated to the operational creditor the existence of a dispute concerning the supply of goods, that pre-notice dispute is a ground on which the Adjudicating Authority may reject an application under Section 9 of the Code, notwithstanding that the dispute was not repeated or particularised in the subsequent reply to the demand notice.

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. 753 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

Trade Affairs ...Appellant

Vs

Borkar Colorpacks Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent

Present:

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Iyer and Mr. Anandh K., Advocates. For Respondent:

ORDER

18.03.2019: The Appellant (Operational Creditor) filed application under

Section 9 of the I&B Code which has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench by impugned order dated 15th

October, 2018.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that there

is no existence of dispute and the Adjudicating Authority cannot decide dispute

raised by the Respondent subsequent to the issuance of demand notice under

Section 8(1) of the I&B Code. Referring to the Advocate's Reply dated 2nd

November, 2017, it was submitted that so called 'various disputes' with regard

to the material supplied as mentioned by Respondent were never highlighted nor

any dispute has been raised. About the quality of materials supplied the letter

dated 2nd November, 2017, as referred above reads as follows:- -2-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 753 of 2018 -3-

3. In the present case we find that the demand notice under Section 8(1) was

issued by Appellant on 11th January, 2018 and prior to the same, Advocate on

behalf of the Corporate Debtor in reply to the notice given by the Appellant, by

letter dated 6th October, 2017, intimated that the Corporate Debtor has denied

the pending amount and there have been various disputes in the material

supplied by the Appellant. The copy of the letter dated 6th October, 2017 reads

as follows:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 753 of 2018 -4-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 753 of 2018 -5-

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that no

dispute had been raised by the 'Corporate Debtor' with regard to supply of

materials and highlighted in letter dated 6th October, 2017. However, as we find

that by letter dated 6th October, 2017, the Corporate Debtor has highlighted that

there are various disputes about supply of material, and the said letter was

issued much prior to the issuance of Section 8(1) notice, we are not inclined to

interfere with the impugned order. In absence of any merit, the appeal is

dismissed. No costs.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial) am/gc

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 753 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