TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal. Moreover, since the authorised representative of the Corporate Debtor in the matter that was filed before the Adjudicating Authority has chosen not to file any appeal against the Impugned Order it was necessary for the Appellant to establish her locus standi for filing this appeal. The Appellant is unable to establish how she is aggrieved by the Impugned Order, and, therefore, her locus standi in filing this appeal. The appeal is thus not maintainable as it doesn t satisfy the criterion for preferring an appeal, as set out in Section 61(1) of the IBC. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1520 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2021 - (Justice A I S Cheema) Member (Judicial) And (Dr. Alok Srivastava) Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Operational Creditor during the period 26.08.2016 till 8.12.2016. It is claimed by the Appellant that disputes arose between the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor regarding freight forwarding of certain goods booked by the Corporate Debtor, whose total value was ₹ 97,09,700/-. She has stated that goods sent through the Operational Creditor reached their destination after inexplicable delay while some goods were never delivered at their destination. It is alleged by the Appellant that the Respondent No. 1 Company is fully responsible for delays in delivering of goods and loss of some goods in transit. 3. It is claimed by the Respondent No. 1 that certain invoices raised by the Operational Creditor for freight forwardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to him as operational debt. The Corporate Debtorreplied to the demand notice through letter dated 22.5.2018 claiming that the Operational Creditor was supposed to provide professional logistics services for handling valuable import shipment of the Corporate Debtor. Such services were not provided by the Operational Creditor, and more specifically, there were issues with regard to loss of goods in transit and delays in shipment, due to which the Corporate Debtor suffered a loss of ₹ 27,20,556/-. 6. Dissatisfied by response of the Corporate Debtor to the demand notice, the Operational Creditor filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC, which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority after due consideration and Corporate Ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Metropolitan Police in UK (attached at pp. 70-73 of the Appeal) wherein a complaint regarding missing cargo was made by the Corporate Debtor on 2.6.2018, almost one and a half year after the alleged loss. The Learned Counsel for Appellant has pointed out that the Adjudicating Authority has not considered these disputes as pre-existing disputes while adjudicating the application of the Operational Creditor in the Impugned Order. 9. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 has stated that though the Appellant has claimed to be a shareholder in the Corporate Debtor Company, she has not provided any evidence of the same. Therefore, she does not have a right to prefer this appeal. The appeal, therefore, should be dismissed only on this gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that is looked into by us is whether the Appellant has any locus standi to prefer this appeal, and whether the appeal is maintainable on this ground, as has been urged by the Respondent No. 1. 13. The Appellant has claimed to be a shareholder having 0.1% shares of the Corporate Debtor in para 1(ii) of the appeal. Later in the same appeal, in para 7(i), the Appellant has stated that she is a shareholder having 0.6% shares of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Datawind Innovations Private Ltd. Thus even the extent of shareholding claimed by the Appellant in the Corporate Debtor is not expressed unambiguously. Moreover, the Appellant has not provided any evidence of her being a shareholder in the Corporate Debtor Company in the form of share certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporate Debtor in the matter that was filed before the Adjudicating Authority has chosen not to file any appeal against the Impugned Order it was necessary for the Appellant to establish her locus standi for filing this appeal. 15. In the light of the above discussion, at the threshold, we find that the Appellant is unable to establish how she is aggrieved by the Impugned Order, and, therefore, her locus standi in filing this appeal. The appeal is thus not maintainable as it doesn t satisfy the criterion for preferring an appeal, as set out in Section 61(1) of the IBC. All the other issues raised by the Appellant become infructuous and it is not necessary to consider them. 16. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the Impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
