Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 532 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyAdmissibility of petition - Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - no privity of contract - pre-existing dispute - default in respect of ‘operational debt’ in the manner provided under Section 9 of the I&B Code - HELD THAT:- The fact that ‘Priya Trading Company’ was the name and style under which Arun Agrawal and Annapurna Agrawal have been operating was never a fact required to be discovered or rediscovered. Both are synonyms and well within the knowledge of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ as also the ‘Appellant’. The ground raised to offset the triggering of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process at the instance of ‘Priya Trading Company’ as ‘Operational Creditor’ by taking plea of there being no privity of contract between the ‘Operational Creditor’ and the ‘Corporate Debtor’ falls flat and has to be dismissed as being absurd and repugnant to the admitted position in regard to the status and locus standi of the ‘Operational Creditor’. Contention raised on this score is rebuffed. Unpaid Liability - alleged default on the part of Operational Creditor - HELD THAT:- There is a crystal clear admission of liability of ‘Corporate Debtor’ to pay an amount of ₹ 2,96,54,219.00 to Arun Agrawal and Annapurna Agrawal who, we have found, were admittedly operating under the Trade Name of ‘Priya Trading Company’. This is notwithstanding the fact that such admission of liability to pay has been subjected to clearing of disputes as mentioned in notice dated 16th June, 2018 and reply notice dated 2nd July, 2018. Reference to such notice and reply notice would reveal that the dispute related to breach of terms of the agreement as regards generating of revenue by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ which according to it missed the intended target due to non-supply/ short supply of raw material. However, such dispute does not constitute a pre-existing dispute qua the amount payable in law or in fact respecting which default has been committed. Admittedly, the ‘Corporate Debtor’ did not discharge the liability in regard to the aforesaid operational debt and committed default by raising the bogey that it owed the amount in question to Arun Agrawal and Annapurna Agrawal but not to the ‘Operational Creditor’ as if they were distinct entities. Viewed thus, the argument advanced in regard to pre-existing dispute being devoid of merit is rejected. Appeal dismissed.
|