9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess (hereinafter referred to as "CIRP") against the Corporate Debtor Viz. M/s. Cengres Tiles Limited and Union of India. The amount of claimed debt in default is Rs. 8,21,294/- (Rupees Eight lakhs twenty one thousand two hundred and ninety four). 2. The facts in brief are that the Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor were in a business relationship. The Corporate Debtor used to purchase engineering goods like lower plain punch and upper isostatic punch from Operational Creditor as a part of business. There were business relations between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, and the Operational Creditor has rendered its service to the Corporate Debtor and raised invoices for amount of Rs. 8,21,294/- (Rupees Eight lakhs t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the amount of debt in default is Rs. 8,21,294/- (Rupees Eight lakhs twenty one thousand two hundred and ninety four) which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 7. We have heard the Learned Counsel of Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor and perused the material on record. It is noted that: A. There is a business relationship between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, and service was provided to the Corporate Debtor from time to time. The Corporate Debtor had purchased different quantities of engineering goods from Operational Creditor wherein Invoice No. 0153 dated 25/07/2019 amounting to Rs. 3,15,310/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifteen thousand three hundred and ten), Invoice No. 0176 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Madhusudhan Tantia Versus Amit Choraria and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 557 of 2020, cited by the applicant, has held that the notification dated 24/03/2020 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India in respect of section 4 of IB Code for increasing the limit of default amount from one lakh to one crore is prospective in effect since said notification does not in express term speaks about its retrospective applicability. The Hon'ble NCLAT held that the said notification is not applicable to pending applications filed prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification. For ready reference we reproduce the relevant para of the said judgment; 56. As far as the present case is concerned, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case in a conspectus fashion holds unhesitatingly that the notification dated 24/03/2020 of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, is prospective in nature and it is not retrospective or retroactive in nature. Further, the said notification will not apply to the pending applications filed before the concerned Adjudicating Authority' (Authorities), under IBC (waiting for admission), prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification, as opined by this Tribunal. Viewed in the above prospectives, the conclusion arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority' in the impugned order to the effect that the notification dated 24/03/2020 of the Ministry of Corporate Affair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
