AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... preferred by the Corporate Debtor against the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench) by which an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') by the Operational Creditor has been admitted. 2. Briefly stated, the Applicant/Respondent filed the application under Section 9 of the Code in respect of an operational debt of Rs. 4,82,98,924/- accrued on account of supply of Iron, Steel Goods and Raw material to the Corporate Debtor. Admittedly, the Operational Creditor has claimed the aforesaid operational debt occurred in terms of 41 invoices, starting from 22.04.2011 to 08.05.2012. However, the Operational Creditor has pleade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Code was given through the advocate. However, the order dated 13.10.2017 was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 8145 of 2018 filed by the Operational Creditor and the case was remanded back to this Appellate Tribunal for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. 7. After the remand, the present appeal was disposed of by order dated 09.07.2018, upholding the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Corporate Debtor challenged the order dated 09.07.2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 7281 of 2018 on the ground that no notice was given to them and hence, they remained unrepresented before the Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was allowed, order dated 09.07.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Section 22 of the SICA applies to the cases where claim is pending as on the date when the company was sick and the pendency of the reference of the Company by BIFR does not extend the period of limitation. 11. In reply to this argument, Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Appellant Company was referred to as a sick unit on 09.11.2005 by BIFR and it continued as such till SICA was repealed on 01.12.2016 and as a result thereof, in view of Section 22 of the SICA, the Respondent was deprived of taking legal action against the Appellant for realisation of their money. It is submitted that the right to apply for recovery of operational debt was made available on 01.12.2016 pursuant to which a notice was issued on 26.04.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof 3 [and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emain suspended or that all or any of the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accruing or arising thereunder before the said date, shall remain suspended or shall be enforceable with such adaptations and in such manner as may be specified by the Board: Provided that such declaration shall not be made for a period exceeding two years which may be extended by one year at a time so, however, that the total period shall not exceed seven years in the aggregate. (4) Any declaration made under sub-section (3) with respect to a sick industrial company shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law, the memorandum and articles of association of the company or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion filed under Section 9 of the Code by the Respondent is well within the period of three years and as such the application is not barred by limitation. 16. The other issue raised by the Appellant is about the pre-existing dispute. 17. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that because of the poor quality of material supplied by the Respondent their orders were cancelled by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) which has caused them huge losses. It is alleged that the Appellant had requested the Respondent for lifting the scrap and taking the liability to pay the freight charges of the said material which was admitted by the Respondent during the personal visit. Thus, on this premise, it is submitted that there existed a dispu....