TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 23 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2021 - [Justice A.I.S. Cheema] The Officiating Chairperson And [Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Vijayesh Atre, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Himani Chouhan, Advocate. ORDER (Virtual Mode) This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Operational Creditor against the Impugned Dismissed Order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench, Ahmedabad in TP/MP/182 of 2019 [CP (IB) No. 591/9/NCLT/AHM/2019]. 2. The Application under Section 9 of IBC was filed by the Appellant-Operational Creditor against Respondent- M/s. Girdharilal Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. - t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stated earlier, and the application has been filed on July 18, 2019, hence, aspect of limitation is to be seen. 5. In this regard, reliance has been placed on payment of ₹ 2.00 Lacs claimed to have been received from the Corporate Debtor on 24.11.2017, however, from perusal of the record Bank statement of the Operational Creditor with ICICI Bank, it is noted that the said amount has been received form M/s. Premier Nutritions and not the Corporate Debtor. No material has been brought on record to show that name of the Corporate Debtor has been changed. In view of the fact that the Corporate Debtor has attached its Annual report for 2018-19 in the name and style of M/s. Girdharilal Sugar and Allied Industries Limited., the name o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Girdharilal Sugar and Allied Indu . The Learned Counsel submits that the Trade Name is only for the purpose of using it for the Unit of the Corporate Debtor whose Legal Name is recorded and both are same entity. The Learned Counsel thus submits that the Adjudicating Authority confused itself while making the observations as seen in Paragraph 5 (Supra) to say that the payment made was not by the Corporate Debtor.0020 6. The Learned Counsel after referring to the above documents has pointed out that if the Section 9 Application is perused (Annexure A-4 Page 41 @ 44) the Appellant had pointed out in Part-IV of the Application that the last bill was of 28.07.2015 and that the Corporate Debtor made RTGS Payment on 24th November, 2017. The RT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Limitation Act, the extent of amount would not be relevant and Part-payment if made would have to be taken into account. Section 19 of Limitation Act does not create distinction on the basis of quantum of payment. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has then referred to Paragraph 2 of the Impugned Order where the Adjudicating Authority expressed doubt with regard to the Invoices to observe that the subsequent date Invoice for a prior transaction is there. The Adjudicating Authority had observed as under: 2. (2) The Learned Counsel for the Operational Creditor appeared and narrated the basic facts. A query was raised as regard to the discrepancy in the number of Invoice and date of Invoice i.e. Invoice No. 304 was shown to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
