TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Keeping in view the ratio of the Judgment passed by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. Vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd. (CoC), [ 2021 (9) TMI 672 - SUPREME COURT ], it can be held that in the absence of filing of the claim within the stipulated time, the Appellant now cannot seek realisation of the claim amounts at this belated stage. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1070 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2022 - [Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial) And [Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : None For the Respondents : Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Ms. Simran Jeet, Ms. Sonali Mehta, Ms. Smiti T. and Ms. Sanampreet Singh, Advocates JUDGMENT Justice An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / 20160909 dated 09.09.2016 for supply of Planetary Stranding Line with the supplier/seller namely Fourgood Overseas (HK) Co. Ltd. based at Hong Kong. Under the said contracts, the goods/machines were destined to ICD Rewari, India and the shipment was to be completed within 3 months of receiving the advance (Annexure -2 Colly, at page 39 to 50 of the Appeal). iii) Therefore, in order to make payments to the supplier, the Appellant raised Proforma Invoices against the Order placed by the Corporate Debtor. The details of the invoices are as under: Invoice No. Dated Amount (USD) 1 ADSRL/16-17/3003 (for supply of Trolley Wire D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2016 04.10.2016 respectively, leaving a balance of USD 5,38,208.61. vii) The Appellant maintains a running account of the Corporate Debtor. As per the statement of account, principle amount of USD 5,38,208.61 (equivalent to INR 3,82,45,103.8 @ the conversion rate of 71.06 as on 17.01.2020) is outstanding and the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay the same with an interest of 8% per annum which comes to USD 1,07,641.72 as on 01.06.2019. The total outstanding amount as on 01.06.2019 is USD 6,45,850.33 (equivalent to INR 4,58,94,124.4 @ the conversion rate of 71.06 as on 17.01.2020). viii) Further case of the Appellant is that the Appellant in response to the said advertisement issued by the Liquidator in respect to the Corporate Deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor. Basis the information, documents and clarifications received from you and further to verification of the same, the undersigned would like to update you that your claim of USD 645,850.33 stands rejected based on the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor and the supporting documents provided alongwith your claim. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred the I.A. No. 2387 of 2020 in Company Petition No. (IB) 64/PB/2017 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and after hearing, the I.A. No. 2387 of 2020 was dismissed. Hence this Appeal. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument and in his Written Submissions submitted that the Invoices have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iquidator is appealable. It is settled law that the Appellate Court is equipped in law to appreciate the evidence but the Court under residuary power has no power to appreciate the evidence and documents filed by the parties. Based on these submissions the impugned order is fit to be set aside and the Appeal be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent 7. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent during the course of argument and in his Reply Affidavit along with Written Submissions submitted that the claim form was filed by the Appellant almost 6 months after the Respondent was directed to be liquidated, that too pursuant to receipt of the notice demanding the refund / repayment of the monies advanced by the Respondent to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be delivered, and if not within those three months then at least within three years from the date of the Proformas. However, the same was only done after receipt of the demand notice dated October 05, 2019 from S3G. 13. It is further submitted that the claim was belated not only after the passage of over six months from such time that the liquidation of the Respondent was directed but also only after the receipt of the demand notice from S3G. This is a clear indication that the same was done as an afterthought to evade its liability to return / refund the monies advanced by the Respondent to the Appellant for purchase of the machines which were never delivered to the Respondent. Based on these submissions no merit in the Appeal, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
