TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission of a Petition for triggering the Insolvency Resolution Process by an Operational Creditor are contemplated in Section 9. Therefore, what is stated in Section 9 cannot be ignored on the ground that NCLT is given jurisdiction to decide the claims against the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, there is no merit in this argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal can be exercised only if the Petition filed by the Petitioner is admitted. There is an express provision in Section 9(5) of the Code, which says that the Adjudicating Authority shall reject the Application in case of notice of dispute received by the Operational Creditor. Therefore, it cannot be said that Section 280 of the Companies Act, 2013, which deals with jurisdiction of the Tribunal, cannot override the effect of sub-section (5) of Section 9 in respect of admission of a Petition filed by an Operational Creditor. In view of the above discussion, this Petition is liable to be rejected and it is rejected under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code. - C.P. (I.B.) NO. 10/9/NCLT/AHM/2017 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2017 - BIKKI RAVEENDRA BABU, J. For The Petitioner : Kunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 42.25 Crores claimed to be default in the Demand Notice is not a liability of STI India Ltd. (ii) STI India Ltd [ STI India for short ] transferred the liability of ₹ 45 Crores after payment of balance to STI Finance Ltd with approval of GUJCOT. In support of the said plea, Corporate Debtor relied upon letter dated 1st March, 2005 executed by the Managing Director of GUJCOT to STI India. (iii) After 2005-06 and 2006-07, no other payments were ever made by STI India to GUJCOT in relation to the amount claimed in the Demand Notice since the liability was transferred to STI Finance Ltd [ STI Finance for short]. In this connection, STI Finance, relied upon the letter dated 27th May, 2008 addressed by STI Finance to GUJCOT; letter dated 26th June, 2008 addressed by GUJCOT to STI Finance; letter dated 9th September, 2008 addressed by STI Finance, to GUJCOT; and letter dated 18th December, 2008 written by GUJCOT to STI Finance. (iv) It is the plea of the STI India that GUJCOT is not an Operational Creditor of STI India for the purpose of initiating insolvency proceedings against it under the Code. (v) It is the plea of the STI India that the claim of ₹ 42.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crucial question is whether Petitioner is an 'Operational Creditor' in respect of STI India or not. Here, it is pertinent to refer to the plea of the Respondent, namely STI India that it has transferred its liability of payment of ₹ 45 Crores to STI Finance with the approval of GUJCOT and therefore GUJCOT is not an Operational Creditor as against STI India. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the proceedings that were conducted before the BIFR. 10. STI India initiated proceedings before the BIFR vide Case No. 743 of 2002. In the said Case, BIFR passed an order on 1.11.2010 stating that the outstanding dues of GUJCOT is the liability of STI India. STI India carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ( AAIFR ), New Delhi vide Appeal No. 45/2011. The Appellate Tribunal, AAIFR by its order dated 29th April, 2013 remanded the matter to the BIFR with a direction to take into consideration the reply of the appellant STI India on the report of OA etc., Thereafter, the proceedings went on before the BIFR till 25.3.2014, as can be seen from the material placed on record by the Petitioner. 11. In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, a dispute which is covered by sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Code has been raised by the Respondent even before the Demand Notice was issued, and notice of dispute has been given by the Respondent to the Petitioner. 15. Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Code says that Adjudicating Authority shall by an order admit the Application if no notice of dispute is received by the Operational Creditor or there is no record of dispute in the information utility. This Adjudicating Authority can only admit the Application filed under sub-section (2) of Section 9 when there is no dispute regarding the amount claimed in the Demand Notice. This Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to decide whether the claim of the Petitioner is proved or not. It is for the other Forums to decide the said aspect. In fact, a Suit has already been filed by the GUJCOT in the year 2003 for the amount claimed in the Demand Notice and it is still pending. 16. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that in view of Section 60 of the Code, this Adjudicating Authority has got jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any claim made or against the Corporate Debtor or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Insolvency Resolution Process by an Operational Creditor are contemplated in Section 9. Therefore, what is stated in Section 9 cannot be ignored on the ground that NCLT is given jurisdiction to decide the claims against the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, there is no merit in this argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the Eleventh Schedule of the Code wherein certain amendments to the Companies Act, 2013 were made by virtue of Section 255 of the Code. Under Section 280 of the Companies Act, 2013, as amended by Section 255 of the Code, this Tribunal (Adjudicating Authority) is having jurisdiction or to entertain or dispose of any suit or proceeding by or against the company and any claim made by or against the company, including claims by or against any of its branches in India. Section 280 of the Companies Act deals with jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal can be exercised only if the Petition filed by the Petitioner is admitted. There is an express provision in Section 9(5) of the Code, which says that the Adjudicating Authority shall reject the Application in case of notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
