Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2018 (3) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1892 - Tri - Companies LawWinding up of Respondent Company - failure to comply with section 9 of IBC - non-compliance with Section 9(5)(ii)(a) of IBC - HELD THAT:- In pursuance to transfer of the case to this Tribunal, the Petitioner is required to comply with the provisions of Section 9(3)(a) to (c) of IBC. Hon'ble NCLAT has consistently held including the one rendered in Company Appeal Uttam Galva steel limited v. GF Feutsche Fortair AG [2017 (8) TMI 1198 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI], that all the provisions are mandatorily required to be complied with by the Operational Creditor in order to maintain the petition before this Tribunal against the Corporate Debtor under the provisions of IBC, 2016. In view of lack of compliance of the mandatory provisions. As stated by the respondents that it is not insolvent Company and it is earn profits earned profit for the year 2017. The amount claimed by the petitioner also clearly disputed by the respondents. The amounts claimed is ₹ 68,94,997/- are inflated invoices raised by the Petitioner, of which the Liquidated Damages payable by the Petitioner amounting to ₹ 12,75,850/- inflated billing in the invoices raised by the Petitioner amounting to ₹ 15,59,341/- and an amount of ₹ 40,59,806/- was deducted and adjusted as a result of breach of contract and no amount is due or payable to petitioner. Therefore, it is clear case of disputes the Adjudicating Authority cannot enter into roving enquiry when the amount is not specific. And also the petitioner has not complied all procedures prescribed under the provisions of IBC, 2016, after transfer the case from the High court of AP. Therefore, instead of examining several disputed questions with regard to amount in question, and in complying with procedures prescribed under IBC, 2016, after transfer the case from High court, it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of the case, with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh in accordance with provisions of IBC, 2016. And it is not a fit case to admit - petition dismissed.
|