TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opposite party. The record shows that when the Appellant sent the recall Notice, the Respondent immediately by way of another Notice which is at Page 138 referred to the documents executed between the parties and claimed that for want of the investment, it had suffered damages. In the Reply before the Adjudicating Authority, the forfeiture was also claimed. We are not entering into the dispute relating to these documents which are stated to be before the Arbitrator. What we hold from the record is that the Appellant Financial Creditor fails to make out case that there is debt which is admitted and enforceable and that it is in default. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.625 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2020 - Justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1,85,12,378/-. It is the case that Respondent instead of clearing the dues of the Appellant, sent a Notice (Page 138) dated 18th January, 2019 claiming that there were dues with regard to a loan Agreement dated 19th December, 2014 (Page 170) and there was also an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) dated 3rd April, 2017 (Page -175). The Corporate Debtor relying on such documents claimed that the matter is being referred to the Arbitrator. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that these documents were fabricated documents as one of the Managing Directors who had entered into these documents namely, Mr. Devendra Kumar Aggarwal had disputes with the other Managing Director Mr. Ravindra Kumar Aggarwal who is his bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates that the amount was not actually forfeited and thus, the Adjudicating Authority observed in the Impugned Order regarding existence of such right. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent refers to the Reply filed before the Adjudicating Authority (Page 152 at 164) to submit that the Respondent had even before Adjudicating Authority claimed that it has forfeited the amount in terms of Para 1.4 of the MOU dated 3rd April, 2017. Counsel states that the Respondent has moved the Arbitrator because of the provision of right to move the Arbitrator under the Agreement read with the MOU as the Respondent has suffered losses due to the non-investment promised by the Appellant and the Respondent has to recover monies from the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
