2021 (12) TMI 741 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Head Note / Extract:
Initiation of CIRP - NCLT rejected the application of appellant u/s 9 - Period of limitation - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Service of demand notice - HELD THAT:- The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has taken note of the fact that the Demand Notice issued under Section 8 of the IBC on 15.03.2019 which was sent through Registered post on 19.03.2019. However, the same was returned with a postal remark “addressee moved”. The Appellant has also issued Demand Notice through email on the same date demanding the arrears of the Annual Listing Fee. However, no dispute is raised by the Respondent. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority have giving finding that debt failed due on 01.04.2015 as admitted by the Petitioner, hence the Application filed under Section 9 of the IBC barred by limitation. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the agreement so filed cannot be relied upon, as the same is not a valid agreement in the eye of law, so Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on an order passed by this Appellate Tribunal in ‘B.S.E. Ltd. Vs. Neo Corp International Ltd. dated 05.04.2019’ (supra) is not applicable in this matter - Moreover, Listing Fees comes under the ambit of ‘Regulatory dues’ which SEBI is entitled to recover. The Respondent being an entitly registered under SEBI, is under an obligation to follow the Regulations prescribed by SEBI for recovery of its dues. The dues so said are not ‘Operational Dues’ but ‘Regulatory Dues’. The Insolvency Law Committee suggests that Regulatory Dues are not to be recovered under ‘Operational Debt’. The appeal is dismissed.