TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stice Rakesh Kumar Jain ( Oral ) This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench) by which an application filed by the Appellant under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (in short 'Rules') against M/s Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the Appellant served the notice in Form-3, in terms of Section 8 of the Code dated 11.09.2018 upon the Respondent in which it was averred that "the Operational Creditor has invested the amount into th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been concealed therein." 7. The application was contested by Respondent. During the pendency of this case before the Adjudicating Authority, Mr. Pavan S. Godiawala appeared on behalf of the Resolution Professional and apprised the Adjudicating Authority about the order passed under Section 7 of the Code on 15.10.2018 by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench against the present Corporate Debtor in which the IRP has been appointed. 8. In view of the statement made by Pavan S. Godiawala, the application filed under Section 9 by the Appellant was withdrawn. The said order dated 01.01.2019 is reproduced as under:- "The instant application is filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by the petitioner namely Premjayanti Enterpri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Code on 12.07.2020 in which it was alleged that the amount of Rs. 58,30,077 was advanced as loan which was earlier alleged to have been invested when the application under Section 9 was filed. 10. The Appellant claimed sum of Rs. 1,00,46,246.17/- which includes the interest of Rs. 42,16,169.17/- besides the principal amount of Rs. 58,30,077/-. 11. The application under Section 7 is filed by Mr. Bankim Jayantilal Shah, Director of the Appellant. During the pendency of this petition, the Respondent paid the principal amount of Rs. 58,30,077/-, therefore, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application filed by the Appellant on the ground that the application under Section 7 is not maintainable regarding the interest only as i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enture which was locked in for a period of six years and the amount of interest was to be paid by the CD at regular intervals and was not paid. 14. In rebuttal, counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the appellant has filed rebuttal affidavit in this case and alleged that there was a mistake in the application filed under Section 9 in which it is alleged that the amount in question was an investment though it was a loan. 15. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 16. It is needless to mention that the proceedings under the Code are summary in nature, based upon the pleadings and documentary evidence. The applications are filed on printed forms provided in the Rules and the ave....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in question has been invested which is now sought to be changed as a loan. It is pertinent to mention that Respondent has already paid the principal amount of Rs. 58,30,077/- to the Appellant but the Appellant is pursuing the present appeal for the resolution of the amount of interest, however, in our considered opinion, the petition filed before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 is an abuse of process of law because the Appellant cannot change the stand taken in the application filed under Section 9 of the Code by it on its convenience and drag the Respondent before the Adjudicating Authority and this Court in an unnecessary litigation. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conduct of the Appellant is deprec....