TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Liquidator must independently assess creditor claims after wrongful bank guarantee invocation worth Rs 56.80 lakh</h1> <h3>Avil Menezes Liquidator of Sunil Hitech and Engineers Limited Versus Tata Consulting Engineers Limited</h3> Avil Menezes Liquidator of Sunil Hitech and Engineers Limited Versus Tata Consulting Engineers Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Rejection of the claim for refund of Rs. 56.80 lakhs paid to prevent invocation of Bank Guarantee (BG).2. Rejection of the claim for Rs. 16.73 lakhs related to invoice dated 22.11.2017.3. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 42 of IBC.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of the Claim for Refund of Rs. 56.80 Lakhs Paid to Prevent Invocation of Bank Guarantee (BG):The Appellant contended that the Respondent, having paid the BG amount without protest, waived their right to seek a refund. The Respondent argued that the payment was made under duress to avoid harm to their professional image and market reputation. The Adjudicating Authority found no substantive evidence that the invocation of BG by MAHAGENCO was due to any deficiency in the Respondent's work. It was determined that the Corporate Debtor's action to invoke the BG was a reaction to MAHAGENCO's invocation of the Corporate Debtor's BG. The Tribunal held that the Respondent was entitled to a refund of Rs. 56.80 lakhs, as the payment was made under duress and without any defect in their work.2. Rejection of the Claim for Rs. 16.73 Lakhs Related to Invoice Dated 22.11.2017:The Appellant argued that the invoice was not certified by MSPG and that the Respondent was not entitled to payment as the plant handover did not take place. The Respondent countered that they had fulfilled their contractual obligations and raised the invoice accordingly. The Adjudicating Authority noted that there were no records of the Corporate Debtor disputing the liability to pay the invoice. The Tribunal found that the Liquidator had summarily rejected the claim without proper verification. The Respondent was therefore entitled to the payment of Rs. 16.73 lakhs for the invoice dated 22.11.2017.3. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 42 of IBC:The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief related to BG, which is a separate and independent contract. The Tribunal clarified that under Section 42 of IBC, the Adjudicating Authority has complete jurisdiction to deal with the decision of the Liquidator rejecting the claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the Liquidator's role includes verifying claims and determining their value, and that the Adjudicating Authority rightly exercised its jurisdiction in this case.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision directing the Liquidator to accept the Respondent's claims for a refund of Rs. 56.80 lakhs and payment of Rs. 16.73 lakhs for the invoice dated 22.11.2017. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Respondent was justified in filing their claims and that the Liquidator had erred in rejecting them without proper verification. The Adjudicating Authority acted within its jurisdiction under Section 42 of IBC.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
