Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1026 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiation of CIRP - Recovery of Interest - invoice not signed by the Appellant - unilateral document or not - interest claimed by the Respondent on the basis of the invoices in which it is mentioned that if the amount is not paid within the due date then 21% interest shall be charged - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is patently illegal and deserves to be set aside. The question which has been raised by the Appellant, is hereby answered in favour of the Appellant in view of the decision taken by this Court in case of S.S. POLYMERS VERSUS KANODIA TECHNOPLAST LIMITED [2019 (11) TMI 1428 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI], as well as the decision of the ‘Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’ in the case of JYOTI LTD. VERSUS BOVING FOURESS LTD. [2000 (12) TMI 817 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA], where it was held that The application was pursued for realisation of the interest amount, which, according to us is against the principle of the I&B Code, as it should be treated to be an application pursued by the Applicant with malicious intent (to realise only Interest) for any purpose other than for the Resolution of Insolvency, or Liquidation of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and which is barred in view of Section 65 of the I&B Code. Before parting, it is constrained to observe that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in not looking into the facts that the principal amount has entirely been paid and the issue was only regarding to interest for which the application under Section 9 of the Code was not maintainable as the spirit of the legislation of the Code is for ‘resolution of debt’ and not for ‘recovery’. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
|