TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, Technical Member The Appellant -Mr. Mahendra Govindlal Agarwal, a Director and a Shareholder of the Respondent No.2/ Corporate Debtor under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short CIRP) has filed this Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short I&B Code, 2016) against the impugned order dated 05.06.2020 passed by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench) Court-1 in CP(IB) No.357/9/NCLT/AHM/2018. 2. The Appellant has prayed for setting aside the above order dated 05.06.2020 passed by Adjudicating Authority apart from seeking costs etc. 3. The Appellant has thrusted upon the following submissions based on which they want the order of the Adjudicating Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the dispute regarding the quality of coal supply by the Operational Creditor resulting into the returning of cheques. 7. The Respondent - Operational Creditor has categorically denied the quality of coal issue and has provided the certificate of sampling and analysis at Page 433 and 434 of the Reply Affidavit obtained from 3rd party Government approved lab. He has also stated that the Corporate Debtor is concealing the facts of delivery challans. This has been incorporated in Para 8 of the impugned Order. He has confirmed that he has raised the invoices and the payment were supposed to be released within 10 days from the date of delivery of coal as per the condition mentioned in the copy of invoices. 8. The Respondent i.e Operational ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have carefully gone through the various submissions as raised above both by the Appellant and the Respondents and have observed the followings: a) The order dated 05.06.2020 delivered by Adjudicating Authority is briefly covering all the issues that has been raised by both Appellant and Respondents and the Adjudicating Authority has heard the case more than 10 times and then he has given his observation and finally admitted the Petition. The presentability of the Author of the Judgment/order varies from individual to individual, the expected thing in the judicial fora is that the judgment must be reasoned judgment and all issues are clearly to be brought out. We feel that on overall reading of the order, he has considerably brought out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date of receipt of such notice from the adjudicating Authority. In the Appeal Paper Book page 33 Annexure A-2, the Application filed by Operational Creditor is provided by Appellant wherein all the columns are filled up. The Application is complete in all respects. c) In this case, the Operational Creditor is disputing the signature of its representative on acknowledgment of defects as stated in letter dated 01.01.2018 and they have alleged that this is a forged signature. He has also submitted that the supplies were made even after 18.12.2017 by the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor never asked to stop this supply. The Operational Creditor has also provided third party Govt. approved labs for sampling and testing of good....