TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....National Company Law Tribunal), Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad with an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short "I and B Code") seeking to trigger corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the respondent/corporate debtor-M/s. K. P. R. Industries (India) Ltd., for committing default in respect of unpaid operational debt amount of Rs. 34,42,005.57. The appellant claimed to have sold, supplied and delivered to the respondent/corporate debtor material for designing, engineering, manufacturing, testing, supply, erection and commissioning spares of industrial light fixtures with accessories in terms of the purchase order dated July 25, 2014 placed by the respondent/corporate debtor with it. It wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Code in terms of the impugned order dated November 15, 2017-(Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. v. K. P. R. Industries (India) Ltd. [2018] 208 Comp Cas 224 (NCLT)) was partially based on the decision rendered by this Appellate Tribunal in Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. v. DF Deutsche Forfait AG [2017] 204 Comp Cas 511 (NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2017 on July 28, 2017. 4. The appellant/operational creditor has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority even after noticing that there was an admitted liability by the respondent/corporate debtor failed to appreciate that the appellant/operational creditor had issued two demand notices in terms of the provisions of the I and B Code ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Adjudicating Authority has not even referred to the second demand notice issued by the appellant, which formed annexure to the application and the impugned order came to be passed ignoring the same. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the appellant claimed to have issued three demand notices respectively, dated July 7, 2016, April 7, 2017 and April 25, 2017 the respondent had received the first two notices which were defective and same were replied by the respondent. However, the third notice was not received by the respondent and no proof of service thereof was produced by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order as according to him the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt ; (iii) non-receipt of payment by the operational creditor from the cor porate debtor within the period of ten days of receipt of the demand notice or receipt of reply from the corporate debtor not indicating existence of a pre-existing dispute or repayment of the unpaid operational debt. If the aforesaid conditions exist, the operational creditor may file an application under section 9(2) of the I and B Code in the prescribed man ner along with the requisite fee. A copy of the invoice demanding payment or demand notice delivered by the operational creditor to the corporate debtor has to be furnished with the application. This is clearly borne out by conjoint reading of sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in order. The impugned order could be set aside on this ground alone. However, the second issue raised in regard to demand notice is required to be dealt with. As held by the hon'ble apex court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [2017] 205 C-C 57 (SC), Civil Appeals Nos. 8337 and 8338 of 2017 decided on August 31, 2017 under section 8 of the I and B Code, the operational creditor is, on the occurrence of a default required to first deliver a demand notice of the unpaid debt to the corporate debtor in the manner provided in section 8(1) of the I and B Code and the corporate debtor is, under section 8(2), required to bring to the notice of the operational creditor, within a period of ten days of receipt of demand notice, the ex....