TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ebtor amounting to Rs. 142.56 Crores between 10.3.1998 to 24.6.2008 out of which an amount of Rs. 100.31 Crores up to 17.9.2008 has been paid. The outstanding principal amount payable to the Operational Creditor is Rs. 42.25 Crores. The Operational Creditor issued Demand Notice dated 27th March, 2017 as required by the Code to the Corporate Debtor in Form No.3 attaching the Invoices. Respondent Corporate Debtor issued reply to the said notice on 7.4.2017. Operational Creditor issued a rejoinder notice to the Corporate Debtor on 19th April 2017. Thereafter on 24th April, 2017 this petition is filed by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor under Section 9 of the Code read with Rule 6 of the Rules. 4. On this Petition, Operational Creditor served advance notice to the Corporate Debtor. The matter was listed before this Adjudicating Authority on 28.4.2017. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the Operational Creditor, in order to enable him to file reply notice issued by the Corporate Debtor and the Rejoinder Notice issued by the Petitioner along with other documents and with a direction to rectify the mistakes if any by the next hearing date, the matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India and GUJCOT was adjudicated upon by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("BIFR"). (vii) The another plea taken by the Corporate Debtor is that proceedings are going on before the Court of Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad in Summary Lavad Case No. 214 of 2003 pertaining to the amounts claimed in the Demand Notice and the said Suit is pending. 6. It is clearly stated in the Reply Notice that STI India has no liability or debt towards GUJCOT in respect of the claim made in the Demand Notice. GUJCOT is not Operational Creditor of STI India. There exists dispute between STI India and GUJCOT in respect of the claims made in the notice. There exists Summary Lavad Case No. 214 of 2003 before the Board of Nominees in relation to the amount claimed in the Demand Notice. 7. In this factual background, now it has to be seen whether this Petition can be admitted or not. 8. Section 8 of the Code enjoins upon the Operational Creditor to deliver a Demand Notice of unpaid operational debt along with a copy of invoice, in case of occurrence of default demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the Corporate Debtor in Form No.3. 9. In the case on hand, Petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 12. Here itself, it is pertinent to refer to the definition of 'dispute' in Section 5(6) of the Code. It reads as follows:- "5. (6) "dispute" includes a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to_ (a) the existence of the amount of debt; (b) the quality of goods or service; or (c) the breach of a representation or warranty; It is clear from the plea of the Respondent that it is denying its liability to pay to the GUJCOT and it says that liability had already been transferred to STI Finance. 13. Not only that, STI India in the correspondence that was exchanged between STI and GUJCOT stated that GUJCOT agreed to waive the entire interest and penalty. This is also a dispute regarding the outstanding amount claimed by the Petitioner. 14. As can be seen from the Reply Notice, and as admitted by the Petitioner, a Suit was filed by GUJCOT before the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad, vide Summary Lavad Case No. 214 of 2003 and it is pending. It is not an admitted fact that the amount claimed in the said Suit and the amount claimed in the Demand Notice is one and the same and it relates to supply of cotton bales by GUJCOT to STI India. The said Suit which was instituted in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of Section 60 deals with transfer of insolvency resolution process or bankruptcy proceedings of a personal guarantor of such corporate debtor pending in a Court or Tribunal to the Adjudicating Authority dealing with Insolvency Resolution Process or liquidation proceedings of such Corporate Debtor. 19. Sub-section (4) of Section 60 says that National Company Law Tribunal is vested with all the powers of Debt Recovery Tribunal as contemplated under Part III of the Code for the purpose of deciding the insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceeding of a guarantor by a Corporate Debtor whose proceeding is pending before the Adjudicating Authority. 20. Sub-section (5) of Section 60 says that National Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person. It only speaks of jurisdiction of National Company Law Tribunal. Clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 60 of the Code says that "the National Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to decide any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, including claims by or against any of its subsidiaries....