TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition for the realization of only interest amount, on the ground that the Petition is filed for other than for the Resolution of Insolvency or liquidation. The respondent further contends that, the claim of interest alone on loan, does not clarify as an Operational Debt‟ under the I B Code‟. It is settled that the charging of interest, ought to be an actionable claim, enforceable under law, provided it was properly agreed upon between the parties. In this case, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the email dated 05th September 2015, relates to the quotation only. It is pertinent to mention that Operational Creditor‟ issued first demand notice on 28th December 2018. Based on this first demand notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 223;) by the Appellant /applicant M/s Steel India to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor M/s Theme Developers Pvt. Ltd. The appellant contends that the Corporate Debtor‟ committed default in making payment to the extent of ₹ 22,64,054/-, which is inclusive of interest calculated @ 2% on the delayed payments against goods sold and delivered by the Operational Creditor‟ to the Corporate Debtor‟. The Applicant states that it supplied the steel bars to the Corporate Debtor‟ for their construction activity, at their project sites and against these supplies various invoices have been raised. Details of invoices are given below: S. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to the payment of interest-only, on account of the delayed payment, to the extent of ₹ 22,64,054/-,i.e. for the period from 2015 to 2018. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the petition, also on the ground that the Corporate Debtor‟ has raised the dispute on 10th January 2019, after receiving the first demand notice, stating that they are not liable to pay the amount, as claimed by the Operational Creditor‟. The demand notice has been issued on 15th January 2019. The petition was rejected, on the ground of pre-existing dispute, covered under Section 5 sub Clause 6(a) of the I B Code 2016. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, corporate debtor submits that the Operational Creditor‟ has filed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-, which is purported to be claimed as interest on account of delayed payment @ 2% per month. We have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the outstanding amount against the Corporate Debtor‟ is towards interest amount of ₹ 22,64,054/-, for delayed payment against the goods sold and delivered. It is evident from the particulars of claims annexed with the Appeal as Annexure A2 (Page 16). This Appellate Tribunal in the case of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1227 of 2019 in S.S. Polymers Versus Kanodia Technoplast Limited held that: 5. Admittedly before the admission of an application under Section 9 of the I B Code, the Corporate Debtor‟ paid th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the parties. In this case, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the email dated 05th September 2015, relates to the quotation only. The scanned copy of the email is as under: The Appellant contends that as per agreed terms @ 2% interest was payable if the payment is delayed for more than 60 days. In this case, undisputedly, payment was delayed. Therefore the Corporate Debtor‟ is liable to pay interest amount as per agreed terms and conditions. The Operational Creditor‟ has placed reliance on the email dated 05th September 2015, which shows that Operational Creditor‟ quoted the rate to the Corporate Debtor‟ wherein, it was mentioned that if payment was delayed for more than 60 days, then int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y resolution process under Section 9 of the I B Code was filed before the Adjudicating Authority. Before the issuance of the second demand notice, the dispute relating to the payment of interest was existing. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the Application by the Impugned Order. It is also pertinent to allege that the outstanding amount is towards interest on the delayed payments, for which there was a pre-existing dispute, before issuance of demand notice. The alleged claim amount, towards interest on loan alone, cannot be termed as an Operational Debt‟. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal is dismissed. No order as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
