2017 (10) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ferred by Appellants-'Operational Creditor' has been rejected in terms of order passed in "Sajive Kunwar v. AMR Infrastructure" decided on 15th February, 2017 by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. When the matter was taken up, Ld. Counsel for the appellants brought to our notice that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed an order on 3rd October, 2016, directing the respondents-'Corporate Debtor' to refund the amount with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. It was submitted that the 'amount' due comes within the meaning of 'debt' and due amount having not been paid there is 'default' and therefore, petition under section 9 was maintainable. 3. Notices were issued on responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to sign and verify all types of documents in the Courts etc., relating to Civil and Criminal matters in India. He has also been given the power to move before the Consumer Court etc. to protect their interest. In that view of the matter, we hold that Mr. Mukesh Chadha, General Power of Attorney holder has right to issue notice under section 8 and sign Form -3 showing his relationship with appellants as their General Power of Attorney holder. 7. So far as the decision in the case of "Sajive Kunwar Vs. AMR Infrastructure" is concerned as referred to in the impugned judgment, similar finding given by Ld. Adjudicating Authority in "Nikhil Mehta and Sons. v. AMR Infrastructure Ltd." has been overruled by this Appellate Tribunal by judgment da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of the repayment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority" 10. In view of the aforesaid provisions, we hold that there is a 'debt' due to the appellants and there is default on the part of the respondents- 'Corporate Debtor'. However, the appellants do not come within the meaning of "Operational Creditor". 11. In the case of "Nikhil Mehta and Sons. v. AMR Infrastructure Ltd." this Appellate Tribunal noticed that Nikhil Mehta & Ors. purchased flat/ shops from builder pursuant to an agreement. In terms of the said agreement, this Appellate Tribunal held the "Nikhil Mehta and Sons" as the 'Financial Creditor', as in ....