TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment of India, is made applicable to the pending applications of IBC (filed earlier to the notification in issue) it will create absurd results of wider implications / complications. Pre-existing dispute or not - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence brought on record by the Appellant in this regard, except for referring to invoices relied upon by the Operational Creditor to contend that those invoices pertains to a new company i.e. Rajprotim Supply Chain Solutions Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, we would hasten to add that by virtue of an agreement dated 21.12.2016, the entire business of the Appellant was transferred to the new company i.e. Rajprotim Supply Chain Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and the Appellant had been paying the dues/debts of the Operational Creditor till December, 2017 and then stopped the same. As a result thereof, the Operational Creditor had to initiate the proceedings. No other point has been raised. There are no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 276 OF 2022 I.A No. 727 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2022 - [ Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Dr. Alok Sriva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 81,09,198/- whereas by notification dated 24.03.2020, issued by the MCA, Govt. of India, the Central Govt. had specified Rs. 1 Crores as the minimum amount of default for the purpose of invoking the provisions of the Code. It is submitted that once the threshold was changed during the pendency of the application from Rs. 1 Lac to 1 Crore, the Adjudicating Authority was not having the jurisdiction to entertain and hear the application. In this regard, he has referred to two decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Neena Aneja Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 161 and Ramesh Kymal Vs. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 224. He has further submitted that the application filed under Section 9 of the Code is also not maintainable because of Section 8(2)(a) of the Code there was a pre-existing dispute. In this regard, he has drawn our attention towards notice dated 22.07.2021 to contend that the said notice was given by the Operational Creditor to Rajprotim Supply Chain Solution Limited in respect of facility of security personal provided to M/s Rajprotim Supply Chain Solution Limited Dankuni and M/s Rajprotim Supply Chain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant to refer to Section 8 of the Code for a quick reference because the said provision is designed in a way to avoid a possible litigation which may be initiated by filing an application under Section 9 of the Code. Section 8 is reproduced herein: Section 8: Insolvency resolution by operational creditor. *8. (1) An operational creditor may, on the occurrence of a default, deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational debt or copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the corporate debtor in such form and manner as may be prescribed. (2) The corporate debtor shall, within a period of ten days of the receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1) bring to the notice of the operational creditor- (a) existence of a dispute, 1[if any, or] record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute; (b) the 2[payment] of unpaid operational debt- (i) by sending an attested copy of the record of electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of the corporate debtor; or (ii) by sendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational Creditor till the culmination of the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. In any case, in respect of the legal issue which has been raised by the Appellant that if the application is filed at the time when the threshold was Rs. 1 lac and during the pendency of the application the threshold is changed Rs. 1 lac to 1 Crore the application has to be dismissed, it would be suffice to say that the decisions relied upon by the Appellant in the case of Neena Aneja Anr. (Supra) and Ramesh Kymal (Supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case rather the decision rendered in the case of Madhusudan Tantia (Supra) by this Tribunal is directly on the issue and in this regard it would be relevant to refer to the observations made in Para 56, which is as under:- 56. As far as the present case is concerned, this Tribunal, after carefully and with great circumspection, ongoing through the contents of the notification dated 24.03.2020 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, whereby and whereunder the minimum amount of default limit was specified as Rs. one crore (obviously raising the minimum amount from Rs. one lakh to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
