The Operational Creditor Should Provide the Prerequisites of Section 9 of IBC, 2016: NCLAT

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

NGT Directs UP Authorities to Keep Vigil Against Illegal Brick Kilns to Protect NCR Air Quality

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), dated 15th October 2020, has directed the Uttar Pradesh administration to keep a vigil...

NCLT Directs RP of HDIL To Provide All Documents To Wadhawans in Arthur Road Jail

Excerpt The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench, dated 8th October 2020, directed the resolution professional (RP) of Housing...

NGT Orders Demolition of Edible Oil Storage Terminals in Chennai

National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Bench, ordered the demolition of edible oil tanks and storage transit terminal in Tondiarpet...

NGT Pulls up Highway Authorities for Dumping Waste in Chenab River

National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, directed the concerned pollution control board to proceed with coercive measures, including assessment...

Follow us

Introduction

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Mumbai Bench, dated 23rd September 2020 rejected the petition filed by the operational creditor against Big Vision Water Tech Priv. Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The court said that the appellant failed to provide the prerequisites of Section 9 under IBC, 2016.

Brief Facts

This is a Company Petition filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), dated 7th June 2019, by Pankaj Modani (Operational Creditor), an individual, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Big Vision Water Tech Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The Corporate Debtor is a private company limited by shares and incorporated on 12th September 2013 under the Companies Act, 1956, Maharashtra, Pune. The case of the Operational Creditor is that he raised invoices on the Corporate Debtor towards professional fees for providing professional compliance services for October 2018. The Corporate Debtor was granted a credit period of one month after raising the invoice on 5th October 2018. The total debt due and payable to the Operational Creditor is stated to be Rs. 1,40,682.00 (Rupees one lakh forty thousand six hundred and eighty-two only). The Operational Creditor had served a Demand Notice dated 12th April 2019 to the Corporate Debtor in terms of section 8 of the IBC. The Corporate Debtor has not replied to the Demand Notice. The Corporate Debtor has not submitted any reply in the matter.

Arguments Before the Court

The appellant claimed that the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 1,29,000.00 (Rupees one lakh twenty-nine thousand only) as principal and Rs. 11,682.00 (Rupees eleven thousand six hundred and eighty-two only) as interest as on 5th November 2018, which is stated to be the date of default.

Analysis

The case has dealt with the provision of Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Court’s Observation

The NCLT, Mumbai Bench, observed that:

  1. There is no record of any contractual arrangement between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor.
  2. There is no record of the invoice having been served on the Corporate Debtor.
  3. There is no record of what professional services have been rendered by the Operational Creditor.
  4. The pre-requisites of section 9 of the IBC have not been satisfied.

Court’s Decision

The Court observed and decided that the present petition fails and therefore, the same is rejected in terms of section 9(5)(ii)(c) of the IBC.

“We make it clear that any observations made in this order should not be construed as expressing an opinion on merits. The right of the petitioner before any judicial forum shall not be prejudiced on grounds only of dismissal of the present petition by this Adjudicating Authority.”


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -