2026 (4) TMI 309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate For Mr. Thriyambak J Kannan, Advocate JUDGMENT [Per: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)] These two company appeals are common in nature, wherein the impugned order dated 21.04.2021, passed commonly in both the company appeals in IBA/1434/2019 and IBA/1414/2019 respectively, has been questioned. The resultant effect of the impugned order is that the application preferred by the Appellant under Section 9 of the I & B Code, read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, has been rejected. 2. Though the bundle of facts in both these appeals may be quite vivid in nature, the question to be answered and adjudicated, as argued by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ational Creditor and sought to initiate CIRP proceedings against the Corporate Debtor (M/s. Technoweld Alloys (Overseas) Private Limited) for recovery of a defaulted amount totaling US $326,725, inclusive of interest at the rate of 10% on the overdue amount. 6. Factually, in both the company appeals, it is contended that the Operational Creditor was engaged in the supply of High Carbon Ferro Chrome material, as per the terms of the sale confirmation contracts entered between the parties. The contracts contemplated supply of the specified material as detailed in the respective sale confirmation letters, which form the subject matter of consideration in the two company appeals. The details are given below: Date Sales Confirmation Num....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was not remitted within the stipulated period, resulting in accrual of debt sought to be recovered through Section 9 proceedings, as detailed in the demand notice. 9. In response to the notice, the Corporate Debtor contested the proceedings, pleading the existence of a pre-existing dispute in respect of invoices raised after May 2018. It was contended that some of the supplied material did not pertain to the transactions in question, and that no shipment documents evidencing actual dispatch were produced. It was also alleged that there was variance in quantity and chemical composition beyond permissible tolerance limits. The Corporate Debtor further relied upon debit notes dated 15.04.2019 amounting to Rs.61,30,913.73/- towards detention....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns, warranting interference under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016. This contention was not satisfactorily countered by the Respondent. 13. Conversely, the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Respondent contended that the company petition itself was not maintainable as it was filed jointly by two Operational Creditors, relying upon the judgment in Uttam Galva Steels Limited vs Df Deutsche Forfait Ag & Another (2017 SCC Online NCLAT 212), particularly paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof. "21. The respondents have relied on rule 23A on the NCLT Rules, 2016, but as the said rule has not been adopted by section 10 of the I and B Code, 2016, rule 23A is not applicable to the application under section 9 of the I and B Code, 2016. For the reasons af....