Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Universal Solutions Of America Llc vs The Travancore Cements Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal10 July 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The existence of a pre-existing dispute, shown by the operational debtor's communications made before the issuance of the demand notice under section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a ground for rejecting an operational creditor's application under section 9 of that Code, and the Adjudicating Authority is not required to examine whether the corporate debtor in fact accepted the liability once such a dispute is shown to exist.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 704 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

Universal Solutions of America LLC. ...Appellant Versus

The Travancore Cements Ltd. ...Respondent

Present For Appellant: Though present, not marked appearance

ORDER

10.07.2019 The Appellant - 'Universal Solutions of America LLC' filed an

application u/s 9 of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, 'the

I&B Code') against M/s. The Travancore Cements Limited' which having rejected

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Division, Bench,

Chennai on 22nd May, 2019 the present appeal has been preferred. The

Adjudicating Authority noticed that by letters dated 14th September, 2017 and on

9th October, 2017, the 'Corporate Debtor' intimated the Appellant (Operational

Creditor) that it had supplied 1888.500 Metric Tonnes of Clinker without 'letter of

credit', out of which, 1376.140 Metric Tonnes was having quality and operational

problems, by which, the 'Corporate Debtor', has sustained loss of Rs.23,70,583/-

for which the Board of Directors of the 'Corporate Debtor' passed a resolution to

recover loss from the pending bills.

In view of the 'existence if dispute', the application u/s 9 of the 'I&B Code'

was rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted

that the aforesaid letters dated 14th September, 2017 and 9th October, 2017 were -2-

not enclosed with the reply-affidavit filed by the 'Corporate Debtor'. The aforesaid

letter dated 9th October, 2017 was produced by the Appellant and the other letters

were filed to show that the 'Corporate Debtor' accepted the liability, which has not

been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority.

However, we are not deliberating on such issue whether the 'Corporate

Debtor' accepted the liability or not as we find that the 'Corporate Debtor' opposed

the application u/s 9 of the I&B Code and the Adjudicating Authority noted from

letters dated 14th September, 2017 and 9th October, 2017 that there was an

'existence of dispute' prior to issuance of Demand Notice u/s 8(1) of the I&B Code

which was issued on 13th November, 2017.

For the reason aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned

order dated 22nd May, 2019. However, the order dated 22nd May, 2019 passed by

the Adjudicating Authority and the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal will

not come in the way of the Appellant to move before the appropriate Forum for

appropriate relief.

The appeal is dismissed with aforesaid observations.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

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

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) ns/gc/

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