Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Venus Cotsyn (India) Ltd vs G.L Jain Button Store Pvt Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal30 July 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The existence of a pre-existing dispute between the financial/operational creditor and the corporate debtor, evidenced by communications showing that the debtor disputed the quality of goods and the invoices in question (shown in Part IV of Form 5), is a sufficient ground to refuse admission of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; an earlier resolution of a dispute for a particular period, or a subsequent acceptance of part of the debt, does not displace a dispute that subsists in respect of the invoices claimed.

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.112 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF: M/s Venus Cotsyn (India) Ltd. .....Appellant Vs. M/s G.L. Jain Button Store Pvt. Ltd. ......Respondent Present : For Appellant: Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate

For Respondents: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr. Hora, Advocates

O R D E R

30.07.2019 - The Appellant filed application u/s 9 of the Insolvency &

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('I&B' Code, for short) against 'M/s. G.L. Jain

Button Store Pvt. Ltd.' ('Corporate Debtor').

2. The Adjudicating Authority ('National Company Law Tribunal'),

Chandigarh Bench by impugned order dated 21st December, 2018 rejected

the same on the ground of pre-existing dispute.

3. At the stage of admission, it was submitted by the learned counsel for

the Appellant that whatever the dispute raised by the 'Corporate Debtor'

with regard to quality of goods was only with regard to a particular period

which was resolved amicably and that the 'Corporate Debtor' subsequently,

accepted the debt reflected in the ledger account. ...contd. 2

4. Learned counsel for Respondent ('Corporate Debtor') have appeared.

Respondent referred to different communications made through the

WhatsApp message as enclosed on pages 275 onwards which suggest that

either the dispute of damaged material or waste material was raised by the

Respondent and returned to the Appellant. We find that there is pre-existing

dispute with regard to invoices which were shown in the part four of form 5.

5. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to intervene in

the impugned order. Prayer is rejected.

6. However, impugned order or the order passed by this Appellate

Tribunal will not come in the way of Appellant to move before the appropriate

Forum for appropriate relief.

The appeal is dismissed. No costs.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

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

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

ss/sk Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No.112 of 2019

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