2024 (1) TMI 340 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Corporate Debtor's appeal dismissed as debt established through signed statements and tax credit claims under Section 9

Mrs. Alpa Rajeev Shah Suspended Designated Partner of M/s Kevin Ventures LLP Versus M/s Kevin Ventures LLP, M/s PMC YM-Pharma Private Limited

Mrs. Alpa Rajeev Shah Suspended Designated Partner of M/s Kevin Ventures LLP Versus M/s Kevin Ventures LLP, M/s PMC YM-Pharma Private Limited - TMI Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the filing of appeal under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Suspended Designated Partner of the Corporate Debtor against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.Details of Judgment:Issue 1: Time Barred PetitionThe Appellant claimed that the petition was time-barred, but the Adjudicating Authority found that it was filed within the limitation period based on the confirmation of accounts dated 15.10.2019. The Authority concluded that there was a debt exceeding Rs.1 Crore, which had not been paid, and dismissed the time-barred claim.Issue 2: Alleged Lack of Personal AwarenessThe Appellant argued that the Director of the Respondent who filed the petition was not personally aware of the facts due to joining the company after the alleged purchase order and tax invoices. However, the Authority deemed this argument specious as the Director was an authorized representative.Issue 3: Pre-existing DisputeThe Appellant claimed a pre-existing dispute regarding damaged goods and losses due to faulty packing. However, no documentary evidence was presented to support this claim, and the Adjudicating Authority found the statement of account to be authentic without any demur.Issue 4: Contradictions and Misleading StatementsThe Corporate Debtor denied the confirmation of accounts by Mr. Rajeev Shah, but the Authority noted that the additional affidavit filed by the Debtor contained the same signature and seal. The Authority found the Debtor's submission misleading and away from the facts.Issue 5: Trade Transaction ArrangementThe Corporate Debtor alleged an arrangement with the Operational Creditor where invoices were drawn without actual trade transactions. However, the Authority found this claim contradictory, especially considering the details provided regarding disputes over goods packaging.Conclusion:After considering all the arguments and evidence, the Adjudicating Authority concluded that the Corporate Debtor should be admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Code. The Authority found no errors in its findings and dismissed the Company Appeal, affirming the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment based on the issues involved, highlighting the key arguments and conclusions reached by the Adjudicating Authority.