TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to time. 2) He has further contended that, the Corporate Debtor during the subsistence of the tenders, did not raise any objection qua the quality of the goods supplied till he approached MSEFC, Bhopal, that when he, the Appellant filed an application before the Micro and Small enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Bhopal for payment of unpaid dues, the CD raised quality issues with respect to the supplies made by him for the first time and that in the proceeding M.S.E.F.C./592/2014, MSEFC, Bhopal delivered its award on 16.04.2018 asking the CD to pay him Rs. 2,12,48,146.48, inclusive of the Principal and the interest thereon. 3) The Appellant has further stated that owing to the determination of the settled liability, as it has been fastened upon the Respondent by the award of MSEFC, Bhopal dated 16.04.2018, he issued of the Demand Notice in Form-III & Form-IV, to the Corporate Debtor on 05.05.2021, and since the CD failed to make any payment in response to such notice, he filed the Application in CP(IB)/46/KOB/2021 under Section 9 of I & B Code against the CD. However, the Learned NCLT, Kochi dismissed the application on 11.03.2022 on grounds of pre-existing disputes w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cant/Appellant, there have been substantial concealment of material and vital facts. Learned Tribunal has observed that an averment has been made by the Appellant, as if the demand notice was never replied by the Respondent, nor disputed by the Respondent, which is contrary, to the available records, that, the Appellant has further concealed the fact of the pendency of the proceedings, on the aspect of calculation of dues in a Writ Petition, before Honourable High Court, Kerala that he had concealed the fact of filing of a Writ Petition at his behest on the aspect pertaining to his blacklisting by CD on the grounds of, supply of the sub-standard goods which is also pending consideration before the Honourable High Court of Kerala, which being areas of dispute between him and the CD would have a material bearing on the proceedings that were drawn under Section 9 of I & B Code. Further, the Learned Tribunal has taken a judicial note of the fact that, in Para-3 of the affidavit that was filed by the Appellant on 30.11.2021, it was specifically contended by the Appellant that the Corporate Debtor has neither replied nor disputed the Demand Notice, was absolutely a wrong fact and contrar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use the reply was submitted by the Corporate Debtor to the Demand Notice under Section 8 on 28.05.2021, denying the liability on the ground of a pre-existing dispute and the reply was part of the records of Appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal on these grounds declined to entertain the Section 9 Application since, the very basis of proceeding, was based upon a false averment and upon material concealment of vital fact, holding thereof that no equity was available for the Appellant. The said view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any apparent error, for the reason being that time and again various Honourable High Courts of the country, have held that the party to a proceedings has to approach before a court of law by disclosing all facts, which may bearing on the adjudication. Even Honourable Apex Court, has held the same view. One of the leading judgements in this regard has been rendered in the matters of Ramjas Foundation and Another Vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6662/2004. Para-14 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: - "14) The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made an additional assessment upon the applicant for the year ending April 5, 1913, in respect of profits arising from foreign possessions. On May 16, 1916, the applicant obtained a rule nisi directed to the Commissioners calling upon them to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not be awarded to prohibit them from proceeding upon the assessment upon the ground that the applicant was not a subject of the King nor resident within the United Kingdom and had not been in the United Kingdom, except for temporary purposes, nor with any view or intent of establishing her residence therein, nor for a period equal to six months in any one year. In the affidavit on which the rule was obtained the applicant stated that she was a French subject and resident in France and was not and had not been a subject of the United Kingdom nor a resident in the United Kingdom; that during the year ending April 5, 1913, she was in the United Kingdom for temporary purposes on visits for sixty-eight days; that she spent about twenty of these days in London at her brother's house, 213, King's Road, Chelsea, generally in company with other guests of her brother; that she was also in the United Ki....