TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reinafter referred to as the "Operational Creditor" or "Appellant") against the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Ahmedabad under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "IBC") in C.P. (IB)/168(AHM)2024. 2. The application of the appellant, Operational Creditor, under Section 9 of the IBC was disposed of by Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 16.07.2024 without issuing any notice to the Respondent, Corporate Debtor, namely, Astron Packaging Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporate Debtor"). The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 16.07.2024 has disposed of the application of the appellant through a laconic and cryptic order as fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... asking the Corporate Debtor to make the payment of Rs.4,10,52,006/- within 10 days, otherwise the Operational Creditor shall be constrained to file application for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as the "CIRP") under Section 9 of the IBC. 4. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority is unreasoned and non-speaking and totally arbitrary and erroneous. It was categorically submitted that there was no settlement agreement with the Corporate Debtor, as wrongly recorded by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the said order dated 16.07.2024. 4.1 It is submitted that it is a settled law that quasi-judicial authorities must assign reasons whil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred in passing the said order relying on absence of formal a purchase order. Further it is submitted that as per provisions of IBC, there is no statutory requirement that the operational debt must be supported by a purchase order. 4.6 It is submitted that the contractual interest forms part of operational debt as held in following judicial pronouncements: (i) Prashant Agarwal v. Vikas Parasrampuria, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 690 of 2022; and (ii) Jatin Koticha v. VFC Industries Pvt. Ltd., [(2007) SCC OnLine 1092]. 4.7 It is submitted that considering the aforesaid facts, the impugned order is legally untenable and liable to be set aside. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, who appeared on advan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he record. It is clear that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has not assigned any reasons for rejecting the application filed under Section 9 of the IBC by the appellant. The submissions made by the applicant/appellant have not been recorded, no notice was issued to the Respondent and no reply was sought from the Respondent on the claim of the applicant. It is apparent that impugned order is deficient in not recording in detail submissions and the reasons for dismissing the application. Recording of reasons in judicial and quasi-judicial orders are life and soul of such orders. Recording of reasons are necessary not only for the satisfaction of the party who had lost the battle but also for the appellate court to appreciate the findings ....