2025 (5) TMI 2006

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mr. Mohd. Nazim Khan, Mr. Harshit Sikka & Mr. Satyendra Sharma, for IRP ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) [ Per : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain ( Oral ) ] This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.05.2024 by which the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj ('Tribunal') has admitted an application filed by M/s Valplast Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 02.06.2023, under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code'), against M/s Supercast Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ('Corporate Debtor') for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 2,29,48,069.19/- and appointed Satyendra Sharma as the IRP. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, in this appeal, filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, the issue of pre-existing dispute, r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 8, if the operational creditor does not receive payment from the corporate debtor or notice of the dispute under sub-section (2) of section 8, the operational creditor may file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process. Section 8(2) when read with Section 9(1), it is clear that Section 9(1) enables the Operational Creditor to file Section 9 application if no payment has been received by the Operational Creditor form Corporate Debtor or no notice of the dispute under sub-section (2) of section 8 has been received. The statutory scheme under Section 8 and 9 does not indicate that in an event Reply to Notice is not filed within 10 days by Corporate Debtor or no Reply to Notice un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce the Appellant failed to file reply to the notice issued under Section 8 of the Code and also the reply to the petition under section 9 was filed belatedly therefore, there the communication between the parties cannot be take seriously. 9. We are of the considered opinion that finding of the Learned Tribunal is not acceptable as it is contrary to the well settled law that even if no reply is filed to the notice issued under Section 8 of the Code, the court is obliged to look into the material produced before it by the Corporate Debtor for proving that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties before the issuance of notice under Section 8 of the Code. 10. With these observations, we set aside the Impugned Order and allow this ....