AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ok Srivastava, Member (T)} The present appeal has been preferred by Simran Kaur, claiming to be a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter called IBC) aggrieved by the Order dated 13.11.2019 (hereinafter called Impugned Order) delivered by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter called Adjudicating Authority) in CP (IB) No. 311/CHD/PB/2018. By this order, the Adjudicating Authority has ordered for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. 2. It is the case of Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority has overlooked certain pre-existing disputes wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Corporate Debtor under Section 8 of the IBC on 19.12.2017 seeking payment of pending dues amounting to Rs. 86,07,122/-. The Corporate Debtor replied to the notice vide letter dated 6.1.2018 stating that the pendency of a civil suit relating to the same matter in a civil court is in the nature of a preexisting dispute between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, and hence the said notice should be withdrawn. Thereafter the Operational Creditor sought to withdraw the Civil Suit No. 819/2017 which was permitted by Additional District Judge-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 20.01.2018. 4. The Company Petition No. 71/CHD/PB/2018 under Section 9 of the IBC, which had been filed by the Operational Creditor, was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir respective contentions. Upon direction by this Tribunal, The Respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit alongwith copy of Suit No. 819/2017 filed by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor and a copy of the order dated 20.01.2018 of the Additional District Judge-04, Patiala House, New Delhi permitting withdrawal of the said civil suit with liberty granted to the plaintiff to file appropriate proceedings, if any, before the concerned court. 8. In the arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has stated that there is a catena of e-mails sent by the Corporate Debtor to Operational Creditor (attached at pp. 66-69 of the Appeal) which make the point of delay in shipment of goods by the freight forwarder (Operational Creditor) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that there is no pre-existing dispute in the matter and e-mails shown by the Appellant to support her case were mostly sent after the Section 8 notice was sent and hence are just an afterthought to build up her case. He has also claimed that the correspondence between the Metropolitan Police in UK and the Corporate Debtor is not in nature of FIR, but is a mere complaint, which was made in 2018, much after the alleged loss of goods. Finally, the Learned Counsel has claimed that the Operational Creditor is just a freight forwarder, who is not responsible for any loss of goods in passage or for their delayed delivery. He has said that the dispute has no connection with the performance of the service that is in the control of the freight for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the Appellant was not authorized by the Corporate Debtor to represent it before either the Adjudicating Authority or before this Appellate Tribunal. In any pleadings or her written submissions, the Appellant has not ventured to submit any proof of her being a shareholder in the Corporate Debtor, moreso when this issue has been raised by the Respondent No. 1. This is a requirement under Section 61(1) of the IBC for preferring an appeal. The text of Section 61(1) of the IBC is reproduced hereunder:- "61. Appeals and Appellate Authority. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an app....