TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant', in IA No.296/2024 ('Condone Delay Application', in 'Re-filing' / 'Re-presentation' of 'Appeal Papers') in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.108/2024. 2. According to the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant', there had occasioned a 'Delay of 27 days', in 'Re-filing' / 'Re-presentation' of 'Appeal Papers', before the 'Office of the Registry'. 3. The reason assigned on behalf of the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant', in IA No.296/2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.108/2024, is that upon perusing the 'Defects', pointed out by the 'Office of the Registry', the Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant', took steps to cure the 'Defects', and that the 'physical copies', along with necessary corrections was sent to the Learned Counsel in Chennai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IA No.296/2024, in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.108.2024 is 'allowed', No costs. Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.108/2024: 7. The 'Appellant' / 'Petitioner' / 'Operational Creditor', has preferred the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.108/2024, in respect of the 'Impugned Order', dated 05.12.2023 in CP(IBC)/19/KOB/2023 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'National Company Law Tribunal', Kochi Bench for the dismissal under section 9 Application, filed by the 'Appellant' / 'Operational Creditor'. The 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'National Company Law Tribunal', Kochi Bench, while passing the Impugned Order on 05.12.2023, envisaged in the CP(IBC)/19/KOB/2023 at Paragraph Nos.11 & 12, observed as under. "11. It is evident from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and consequently 'dismissed', the Petition, challenging the 'correctness' and 'legality', of the dismissal order, passed in the main CP(IBC)/19/KOB/2023 by the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', in the instant 'Appeal', before this 'Tribunal', the Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant', submits that the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', had not taken into consideration that M/s. Silcal Metallurgic Limited, Coimbatore has entered into an 'Agreement', dated 30.12.1994, with the 'Respondent' / 'Kerala State Electricity Board Limited', executed various 'Civil Works', at the work site of the 'Corporate Debtor', at Bhoothathankettu, Kerala. During the years 1997-1999, the 'Civil Works', were carried out by the 'Appellant', 'P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 'Official Liquidator' and approached the 'Hon'ble Madras High Court' on 11.11.2014 and 11.01.2017 and directed the 'Official Liquidator', to adjudicate the 'Claim', filed before the 'Appellant'. 11. It comes to be known that the Hon'ble Madras High Court, according to the 'Appellant', had issued directions to the 'Liquidator', through proceedings dated 07.09.2017, 'adjudicated', the 'Claim of the Appellant', against the company in Liquidation (M/s. Silcal Metallurgic Limited), in regard to the Civil Works carried out, for the benefit of the Respondent, to an extent of Rs. 11,81,50,595/-. 12. The Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant', contends that the 'Appellant', has made a request to the 'Official Liquidator', to take necessary step....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....half of the 'Appellant', is that the 'Demand Notice', dated 01.12.2022, was issued in the 'Form 3' and the said Notice was received on 05.12.2022 but there was 'no response', to the said 'Demand Notice' nor as it raised any 'Dispute', in respect of the 'Demand'. 15. According to the 'Appellant', the 'Date of Default', occurred on the 'Respondent' / 'Corporate Debtor', failure to make payment, upon receipt of the 'Demand Notice', dated 26.10.2019. Hence, the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'National Company Law Tribunal', Kochi Bench, was not correct in arriving at the conclusion that the CP(IBC)/19/KOB/2023 filed by the 'Appellant' / 'Operational Creditor', is 'not maintainable' and 'dismissing', the Company Petition. 16. When a 'query', i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ignment of 'Debt', is seen. 19. The fact of the matter is that the 'Assignment of Debt', creates a 'right', to the 'Assignee', on the 'Debt', whereas 'permission' to sue, for realisation of 'Debt', from 'Corporate Debtor', is not a 'Right', on 'Debt'. 20. Dealing with the plea that the 'Respondent' / 'Corporate Debtor', had 'No Reply', to the Section 8 Demand Notice of the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant', yet non-Reply of the 'Respondent' / 'Corporate Debtor', will not accrue to the benefit of the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant', in its 'Claim', against the 'Respondent' / 'Corporate Debtor'. In the instant case, the 'dispute', raised by the 'Respondent', cannot be said to be a mere 'Bluster' or 'Illusory' or 'Imaginary' or 'Moonshine' one. When....