9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CP (IB) No. 1303/MB-V/2022 against Buildmighty Techno Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 5,96,33,275/- alongwith interest calculated till 11.05.2022, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of this care are that the Corporate Debtor which was initially incorporated as Fabtech Sterling Technologies Pvt. Ltd. but w.e.f. 27.11.2014 its name was changed to FTS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and ultimately w.e.f. 09.08.2021 again changed its name as Buildmightly Techno Pvt. Ltd., availed financial assistance from the Financial Creditor, namely, Fabtech Technologies International Limited at several intervals since calendar year 2012 which was duly accepted and acknowledged by the CD. 3. The Financial Creditor filed the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fails to file its reply, its right to file reply shall stand forfeited. No reply has been filed till date. Heard the oral submissions of Mr. Amjad Adam Arbani. During the course of the hearing, Mr. Amjad Adam Arbani accepted that the company is liable and stated that they have not paid the Petitioner. Heard both the parties, the matter is reserved for orders." 4. The Appellant also filed the additional affidavit dated 15.05.2023 vide diary no. 270913805182022 before the order was reserved. The appellant with the additional affidavit enclosed the updated record of NeSL and demand notice dated 09.04.2022, however, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that in the absence of loan agreement it is not possible to determine the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resolution of their own amount which has not been paid. However, the Appellant filed the additional affidavit in terms of the order passed by this Court. In the said affidavit dated 13.11.2024 which was taken on record, the Appellant has averred that he has attached list of creditors of the Appellant as well as respondent company. 7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the CD is 82% subsidiary of the Appellant but the subsidiary is separate legal entity from holding company and in this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of S.A.R.E. Public Company Ltd. vs. Avon Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the report of NeSL in which it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the statement was suffered by it through Amjad Adam Arbani on 16.05.2023 which has already been reproduced hereinabove. 13. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that there was a debt which has been admitted and established with the record of NeSL and default i.e. after the notice was issued on 09.04.2022 by which 30 days time was given to the Respondent to pay i.e. up to 09.05.2022 and these facts were brought to the notice of the Tribunal by way of an additional affidavit dated 15.05.2023. All these facts indicates that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the affidavit dated 15.05.2023 which the Appellant had placed on record with demand notice as well as the record of the NeSL about the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
