2019 (1) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Corporate Debtor against whom Respondent No.1 - Biostadt India Limited, the Operational Creditor filed Application - C.P. 1479/I&BC/2017 under Section 8 read with Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereafter referred as 'Code') and which has been admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ('NCLT', in short) acting as Adjudicating Authority under the Code, on 2nd May, 2018 and Moratorium Order has been passed with other directions. 2. The Appellant has filed this Appeal being aggrieved by the admission of the Application. 3. The main ground raised by the Appellant is that the Orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority were ex-parte and the Adjudicating Authority itself, through its Registry did not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts of Rs. 1,14,41,776.61 paise remaining outstanding on the invoices issued. According to the Appellant, he had met Mr. Suresh Nair - the representative of Respondent No.1 and discussed the matter as the Appellant expected reduction in outstanding considering that materials supplied were of low quality. According to the Appellant, an e-mail was 4 sent on 25.04.2016 to the Operational Creditors seeking additional time to clear pending bills as the company was facing financial stress. 6. The Counsel for Operational Creditor has pointed out copies of e-mails sent by the Appellant, which are at Annexures B-10 and B-12, on 22.07.2016 to submit that by these e-mails, the Appellant accepted that the outstanding amounts would be cleared but no dis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on Judgements of this Tribunal in the matter of "M/s. Starlog Enterprises Limited Versus ICICI Bank Limited 2017" reported in SCC OnLine NCLAT 13 and "Mass Metals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd." reported in 2017 SCC OnLine NCLAT 504 to submit that no Notice was issued and served by Adjudicating Authority itself and thus principles of natural justice were violated. It is argued that it was necessary that Registry of the Adjudicating Authority should have served the Notice before Adjudicating Authority admitted the application under Section 9. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 - Operational Creditor submitted that the Operational Creditor filed the proceedings before the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t by Areez Gazdar for Veritas Legal, shows that the Appellant did receive the Notice and forwarded the same on 15.11.2017 itself to one Mr. Anil informing him to meet the Advocate and discuss and that they have to fight the case. Clearly and apparently, the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant had knowledge of the legal proceedings and also of the Notice. When the Advocate sends the Notice, it is on instructions from the client and the same cannot be ignored by saying that the Advocate should also forward authority and Resolution of the Company. From the material available, it is apparent that the 7 Corporate Debtor - Appellant had received Notice served by the Advocate. The grievance of the Appellant is that the Notice should have been sent ....