TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BI. Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Ashutosh Jain, Advocates for R2. JUDGEMENT NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant i.e. Ramniwas B Somany the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code') against the Impugned Order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Court- I ('Adjudicating Authority') in the Company Petition (IB) No. 361 of 2019. Anushri Paper Pack Pvt. Ltd, the Operational Creditor of the Corporate Debtor, who initiated Section 9 application, is the Respondent No.1 herein. Indian Denim Limited, who is the Corporate Debtor through its Interim Resolution Professio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such return. The Appellant contended that this constitutes a disputed question of fact requiring detailed investigation and evidence, and that the process under Section 9 of the Code being summary in nature was not maintainable and further the debt is not crystallized. 5. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in holding that based on the ledger account, the transactions between the parties is a running account. The Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that the Subject Company Petition under Section 9 of the Code pertained to eight separate transactions or bills, each with distinct due dates, rendering every individual invoice or bill a separate transaction rather than part ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e copy of the ledger account of the Corporate Debtor produced by Respondent No. 1 as Annexure G to the original Petition before the Adjudicating Authority not duly stamped and was therefore inadmissible in evidence. 10. The Appellant contended that the Respondent No. 1 failed to initiate appropriate civil proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation and, by such inaction, allowed the allegedly supplied goods (which were of inferior quality) to deteriorate over time, to such an extent that at present, the Corporate Debtor is even unable to produce them for inspection before the Authority. 11. Concluding his arguments, the Appellant requested this Appellate Tribunal to allow the present appeal. 12. The Respondent No.2 submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent No.1 was proceeded against Ex-parte. The order dated 29.04.2024 reads as under: "29.08.2024: There is no appearance on behalf of Respondent No.1. On the last date of hearing also he did not appear, therefore, the Respondent No. 1 is proceeded against ex-parte. Adjourned to 21.10.2024 for arguments. Interim order to continue. "At this stage, Mr. Praful Saini, Advocate has appeared and submitted that he has filed an application through e-filing as an Intervenor on behalf of the SBI. He seeks permission to file the hard copy of the application. Permitted to do so." (Emphasis Supplied) 15. Thus, our findings are based on the submissions made by the Appellant, Respondent No.2 and based on the record made avai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Corporate Debtor neither denied the receipt of the goods nor raised any dispute at any that of time about condition of goods or its quality. Further, Demand Notice dated 25.01.2019 was delivered on 30.01.2019 which was never replied by the Corporate Debtor. We also note that Adjudicating Authority observed that the Corporate Debtor filed the reply to this petition stated therein for the first time that the goods which had supplied by the Applicant were not in good condition and were of much inferior quality but without any substance or evidence. 21. At this stage we take into consideration the relevant portion of the Impugned Order, which reads as under: "18. The Applicant has attached a copy of the ledger account of the Appl....