TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal is directed against the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-IV) by which an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') by the Appellant (Operational Creditor), an individual, against the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) for the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (in short 'CIRP') on account of nonpayment of a sum of Rs. 7,50,77,317/- as principal, claimed in terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (in short 'MOU') dated 24.08.2013, has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the case set up by the Appellant is that the Respondent is in the business of supply, trading and exports of agriculture extraction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has vehemently argued that the MOU was entered into by the Corporate Debtor through the Appellant and it does not make any difference if the MOU bears the seal of the Company or not. Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued that MOU has been executed on the stamp paper purchased by the Corporate Debtor and is signed by the authorized person. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has committed an error in rejecting the MOU on the ground that it does not bear the seal of the Company which is not necessary for the purpose of executing the same. It is further submitted that the Appellant could not have, in any way, found out as to whether the company has authorized the signatory of the MOU because it is a part of the indoor ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at 75, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 hereinafter referred to as "The Company" (which expression shall unless it be repugnant to the context or meaning thereof be deemed to mean and include its Administrator and Assigned) and Mr. Prajendra Jaroli Administrator and Assignee) and Mr. Prajendra Jaroli S/o. Mr. Shanti Lal Jaroli an adult and Indian Inhabitant residing at C-506, Gokul Garden, Thakur Complex, Kandivli (E), Mumbai - 400 101 hereinafter referred to as the "The Consultant" (which expression shall unless it be repugnant to the context or meaning thereof be deemed to mean and include his heirs, executors, administrator, assignee). Whereas the Company is engaged i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned from the business stated in clause 5 arrived at before depreciation & Taxation accrued after 31st July, 2013. 7. The company agrees that it will not object in carrying on the business of Agri & Extraction products by M/s Jai Global Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Which do not attract incremental turnover benefits for export incentives. In Witnesses Whereof parties hereto have hereunto, set and subscribe their respective hands the day and year first hereinabove written. Signed, Sealed & Delivered By the withinnamed the "Company" by the hands of Mr. Shantilal Ratanchand Lunkad the Authorized Signatory In the present of CA Paras Mandot 30, Kamdar Shopping Centre, Opp. Station Vile Park (E) Mumbai-57 Signed, Seale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hree years would be over by 31.08.2016. The argument of the Appellant that the subsequent payment made in the year 2018 by the Respondent would attract Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is totally fallacious. The payment of Rs. 50,000/- referred to in the argument by Counsel for the Appellant is to Rajendra Jaroli, whereas the appeal is filed by Prajendra Jaroli. The Respondent has drawn our attention to Pg. 216 to 218 which are the payments made towards the professional charges of the Appellant after 31.07.2013 and were not part of the payment of Rs. 4.50 Crores which was alleged to have been settled by the Corporate Debtor through Shantilal Ratanchand Lunkad. Thus, in our considered opinion, the petition filed under Section 9 of the ....