9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to Adjudicating Rules), 2016 for initiating insolvency resolution process against the Respondent/Corporate Debtor namely Fabworth Promoters Private Limited. 2. The petitioner alleged that Chris Garrod Global India Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated in India as a subsidiary of the company with the name and style of Chris Garrod Global Ltd. at London and that petitioner carrying business of procurement and consultancy and project management consultancy in line with the nature of business which is similar to that of Chris Garrod 'Global Ltd., London and execute projects in Asia for contracts entered globally. The petitioner further contends that as per the work order dated 21.02.2014 for providing procurement consultancy services for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any contract entered into between petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner has no case that this petition was filed for and on behalf of the holding company or based on any debt assigned to it. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no contractual relationship between the respondent and therefore petitioner cannot file this petition as an operational creditor. Such a contention seems to have raised by the respondent in the reply notice send to the petitioner on 11.04.2017 (Annexure G). Admittedly, petitioner received the reply notice. Ongoing through the reply it is understood that respondent challenged the authority of the petitioner in claiming the amount demanded by the petitioner in the demand notice issued to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctors of the petitioner's company and not passed by the holding company. No documents produced to prove that the debt due to the holding company was legally assigned to the petitioner by the holding company. Therefore, it appears to us that petitioner could not be regarded as an operational creditor comes under the purview of S.5 (20) of I&B code, 2016. 8. Then the next question is whether the debt claimed by the petitioner is an operational debt as defined under section 5(21) of I&B Code. It is good to read section 5(21) of the Code. It read as follows:- Sub-section (21) of Section 5 defines 'Operational Debt' which reads as follows: "operational debt" means a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services including employment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Bench rejected the petition holding that "the appellant is not an 'Operational Creditor' as defined under sub-section (20) read with sub-section (21) of Section 5 of the I&B Code 2016". Aggrieved by the order of rejection the appellant filed appeal before the NCALT. The Hon' bale NCALT dismissed the appeal confirming the order of rejection. It is good to read paras 3 & 6 of the above referred judgment. It read as follows:- Para. 3:- "We have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant reached any agreement with the respondent/corporate debtor for purchase of a plot in Ozone City, Aligarh. A receipt has been enclosed which shows that an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
