TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t agreement, such stand on the part of the Adjudicating Authority cannot be maintained. The Respondent has even in the Reply (Diary No.10319) accepted entering into this fresh agreement dated 15th June, 2018. The Application under Section 7 of I B Code could not have been rejected on such grounds as mentioned by the Adjudicating Authority. Nothing else is pointed out to question the Form submitted. Form submitted under Section 7 of I B Code being complete, the same should have been admitted. The matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 30 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2019 - Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson, Justice A.I.S. Cheema, Member (Judicial) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was again unpaid balance of ₹ 4.50 Crores. 4. It seems that the Appellant had earlier initiated CP(IB)122/Chd/Pb/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority at Chandigarh and the Adjudicating Authority held that the Appellant had failed to prove to be a Financial Creditor. It appears that CA 250/2018 seeking recall was also rejected on 23.05.2018. 5. After this, the Appellant entered into yet another agreement on 15th June, 2018 with the Respondent and the Respondent again issued post-dated cheques, which were again dishonoured, and the Appellant issued Notice to the Respondent Corporate Debtor calling upon the Respondent to pay ₹ 4.50 Crores with interest. 6. The Appellant filed CP(IB)332/Chd/PB/2018. 7. The Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greement dated 15th June, 2018 with the Appellant after dismissal of the earlier proceedings under Section 7. The Counsel stated that the second agreement entered into by the Respondent was to buy peace. 9. Some of the Clauses of the agreement dated 15th June, 2018 read as under:- A Company winding petition was filed before the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court by Part No.1 against Part No.2 which is pending adjudication. There after it was agreed between the parties that Part no.2 i.e. K.C. Land Finance Ltd will pay ₹ 4.40 crores as principal amount and ₹ 1.60 crores as interest. An agreement was executed between the parties on 20th May 2017 and various post dated cheques were issued. The Part No.2 i.e. K.C. La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15th June, 2018 clarified the transaction and nature of the agreement between the parties with regard to the dues and the above clauses in the agreement dated 15th June, 2018, show that the Appellant is Financial Creditor to whom the Respondent owes financial debt, and which is in default and the amount is more than ₹ 1 Lakh. In such contingency, we find it to be totally inappropriate on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to shut its eyes to the Agreement dated 15.06.2018 and to have thrown out all the claims of the Appellant on the basis that reference to the earlier rejection of the Company Petition 122/2018 had not been made. When the Petition was filed based on the subsequent agreement, such stand on the part of the Adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
