TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kr. Chaurasia, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. P. Nagesh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. These Appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Bench-VI, rejecting separate Applications filed by the Appellants under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code" for short). All these Appeals raising common question of law and facts have been heard together and are decided by this common judgment. It is sufficient to refer the facts and pleadings in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 318 of 2021 to decide all these Appeals. The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, claim to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial supplied and Corporate Debtor had called a meeting on 18.02.2017 in presence of reputed persons of the district where Applicants had proposed to supply back the quantity of similar material which the Applicant had supplied to the Corporate Debtor in consequence of which on 05.03.2017 material was supplied back. Corporate Debtor mentioned that after receipt of demand notice, notice of dispute was issued by the Corporate Debtor, it was pleaded that facts of supply back can be proved with the corresponding VAT/GST, Excise and Income Tax etc. The Corporate Debtor after looking to the account confirmation paper dated 01.04.2017 lodged a First Information Report against the Operational Creditor alleging fabrication of document dated 01.04.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll due on 10.09.2016 and the Application was filed in November, 2019. It is submitted that the acknowledgment dated 01.04.2017 was a forged document. The Corporate Debtor never acknowledged the debt. The document filed by the Operational Creditor on face of it is clearly forged. It is submitted that the name of the Corporate Debtor is mentioned in account confirmation document as "Silvertoan Papers Mills Ltd." whereas the correct name of the Corporate Debtor is "Silvertoan Papers Limited". The signature appended on the document of authorised signatory has also been forged. Person is claimed to have been signed as 'Devpal' whereas the correct name of accountant is 'Deopal' and signs as 'Deopal'. The Corporate Debtor after coming to know abou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending. When the very basis of the claim of the Operational Creditor that their Application is within time is under cloud and is disputed by the Corporate Debtor, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority by not placing reliance on account confirmation document dated 01.04.2017 for giving extension of the limitation to the Operational Creditor. 7. In addition to above, there is one more reason due to which the Application under Section 9 deserves a rejection. A notice of demand dated 20.03.2019 was issued by the Operational Creditor under Section 8 claiming the outstanding amount which was replied by notice dated 24.04.2019. Subject of the reply dated 24.04.2019 is as follows:- "Subject: Notice of dispute under Section 8(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-A and the copy of the Ledger is also attached herewith as Anne xure-B." 9. In paragraph 13 of the reply notice, following was stated:- "13. That without prejudice to the instant notice of dispute, our client is in the process of initiating appropriate legal action e.g. filing a criminal complaint under the Provision of Indian Penal Code for fraud, forgery, misrepresentation, Defamation and Criminal breach of trust." 10. It is relevant to notice that the reply notice of the Corporate Debtor dated 24.04.2019 was responded by the Appellant by way of letter dated 02.07.2019, response has been filed as Annexure A-10 filed by the Appellant herself. The claim of the Corporate Debtor that the materials have been supplied back has been denied. ....