https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769490 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769490 Dismissal of Section 9 Application filed before the Adjudicating Authority - initiation of CIRP - Existence of debt and default or not - quality of goods or services - breach of a representation or warranty - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the Purchase Orders, which form basis of the current Company Petition, annexed as "ANNEXURE V-1 to V-8", we find that all the said Purchase Orders have been signed by Mrs. Ashwini Ghodi or Mr. Gaurang Ghodi, and not a single Purchase Order bears the signature of the Intervener, Mrs. Sheetal Dahanukar. Further it is claimed by the Intervener that all the said purchase orders are post April 2021, which is after the date on which dispute between Mr. Nilesh Dahanaukar and the Intervener grew strenuous and the intervener left her matrimonial house. This disputed nature of the aforementioned facts raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the claim filed by the Petition Firm. Thus, the Intervener's contention with respect to the same holds merit and cannot be ignored. There exists a nexus between the partner of Pan Products, Mr. Gaurang Ghodi, and the Respondent Company and Mr Nilesh who is the Director of Appellant-OC-Om Sai. In view of the aforementioned email dated 03.01.2023 and the Purchase Orders dated 27.10.2021 and 13.06.2022, which are signed by Mr Ghodi, we find that Mr. Gaurang Ghodi is also involved in the day-to-day internal affairs and workings of the Respondent-CD-Plastomax Engineering, to such an extent that Mr. Gaurang Ghodi was in a position to send official emails and even sign Purchase Orders on behalf of the Respondent Company. The allegations of fabrication of documents as alleged by the Intervenor, Mrs. Sheetal Dahanukar who is wife of the Petitioner also noted. The Intervenor has raised serious allegations about the authenticity of the invoices and purchase orders presented by the Petitioner - keeping this offence of forgery committed by Mr. Nilesh Dahanukar in mind and in view of the contentions raised by the Intervener, we have sufficient grounds to believe that it is plausible for Mr. Nilesh Dahanukar to forge signature of his wife, the Intervener and the contention raised by the Intervener with respect to the same holds merit and cannot be brushed aside. The Appellant claims to qualify as an operational creditor under Section 5(20) of the IBC, and accordingly claims that the debt is clearly an operational debt arising from the supply of goods to the Respondent. It claims that the personal and matrimonial disputes raised by the director of the Respondent do not constitute a "dispute" as per Section 5(6) of the IBC. And the IBC defines a "dispute" as one related to the existence of the debt, quality of goods/services, or breach of warranty or representation, none of which are applicable to the alleged personal disputes between the parties. The disputes raised by Mrs. Sheetal Dahanukar were personal in nature (e.g., matrimonial issues and shareholder oppression) and not related to the operational debt or quality of goods supplied - It is also claimed that the Respondent did not raise any valid dispute about the debt, and the alleged disputes are related to personal matters such as matrimonial discord and shareholder disputes, which do not qualify as valid disputes under Section 5(6) of the IBC. Conclusion - The company petition has not been filed for insolvency proceedings but is for ulterior motives. There are no infirmity in the findings of the adjudicating authority that the Section 9 application has been filed to settle personal disputes and such an act is reprehensible. In this background, the finding of the adjudicating authority for imposition of a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on the petitioner for filing frivolous and motivated petition also agreed. Appeal dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530