9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Code'), read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) rules, 2016, for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as 'CIRP'), against M/s. LKB Engineering Private Limited ('hereinafter referred to as 'Corporate Debtor), for the alleged default on the part of the Corporate Debtor, for an amount of Rs. 26,20,992/-, inclusive of principal amount of Rs. 17,91,103/- and interest @ 18% per annum, calculated w.e.f. 11.07.2018 till 11.01.2021 tentatively. The details of transactions leading to the filing of this application, as averred by the Operational Creditor, are as follow: i. That the Corporate Debtor approached the Operational Creditor i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btor. As agreed, on 12.02.2019 goods valuing Rs. 2,11,680/- were returned by the Operational Creditor which were also acknowledged and accepted by the Corporate Debtor, leaving a total excess of Rs. 17,91,103/- with the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, it was also agreed between the parties that the Corporate Debtor shall supply goods for the said amount to the Operational Creditor. However, no goods were supplied despite repeated reminders. v. That the Operational Creditor issued a Demand Notice under section 8 of the Code on 09.03.2019 demanding the payment of principal amount of Rs. 17,91,103/- alongwith interest. However, the Corporate Debtor has neither issued any notice of dispute nor paid the aforesaid sum demanded. 2. Consequent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore and above and the present matter has been filed only for Rs. 20 Lacs. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 3. That the Operational Creditor has filed its rejoinder in which the facts of the case are reiterated and the following contentions are made: i. That the Corporate Debtor sold goods to the Operational Creditor and the Operational Creditor made the payment to the Corporate Debtor in exchange which specifically establishes their relationship as such in accordance with Section 5 (21) of the Code. ii. That the debt became due on 11.07.2018, which was the date on which the Operational Creditor became aware of the excess payments made to the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, constant negotiations and demands for payment were goin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we would like to refer to the judgment dated 25.10.2021 of Hon'ble NCLAT in the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 813 of 2021 in the matter of Jumbo Paper Products Vs. Hansraj Agrofresh Pvt. Ltd. The relevant portion (paragraph 10) of the decision is reproduced below:- "10. The other judgments cited by learned Counsel for Appellant broadly lay down that any statute/law can be applied retrospectively only if explicit provision regarding its retrospective application is made in the statute. It is seen that notification dated 24.3.2020 (supra) makes it unambiguously clear that the threshold limit to be considered for section 9 application will be Rs. 1 crore. This threshold limit will be applicable for application filed u/s. 7 or 9 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
