9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Bench-IV by which Application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short) has been rejected. 3. The Appellant claiming to be Operational Creditor has filed Section 9 Application for outstanding amount of Rs. 1,86,900/-. The Adjudicating Authority issued notice and after considering the reply of the Corporate Debtor has dismissed the Application. The Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the Application has returned following findings in paragraph 5:- "5. We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels for the applicant and the respondents and perused the case records. From the bare perusal of the file it can be inferred that admittedly there is no agreement entered into betwee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year and alleged amount is only of one lac. It is well settled principle of law that NCLT can't be allowed to be played at the hands of the unscrupulous parties. In sequel of the above stated facts and circumstances, this tribunal is of affirm view that the present petitioner failed to establish on record that he actually supplied the building material to the respondents and an amount of rupees one lac was due rather the petition is collusive in nature. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, the present petition stands dismissed with no order to costs. File be consigned to records." 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no basis for recording the finding against the Appellant of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submission of the Counsel for the Appellant that the quantum of the amount may not be relevant for taking a decision either to reject or admit the Application but on the sequence of the events and the facts which were before the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority rightly came to the conclusion that there was active collusion between the parties to defraud the other creditors and to facilitate the Respondent to enjoy the rigors of the I&B Code. 9. In the facts of the present case, we see no reason to take a different view from one which have been taken by the Adjudicating Authority. The Judgment of this Tribunal in Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani's case was on its own facts and the findings returned were with regard to the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
