June 2019

CORPORATE LAW CORNER

POOJA PUNJABI OBERAI
Chartered Accountant

6

Ramco Systems Ltd. vs. SpiceJet Ltd.

[2019] 105 taxmann.com 175 (NCLAT)

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 31
of 2018
Date of order: 8th May, 2019

Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – When Operational creditor could not establish that invoices in respect of debt due and payable were actually forwarded to the corporate debtor and received by it, claim u/s. 9 could not be maintained for want of consistency and clear documentation of debt due

 

FACTS

R Co entered into “Aviation Software Solutions Agreements” dated 13.05.2013 consisting of four agreements, all of even date, with S Co. There were certain amendments made on 01.07.2014 which reduced the number of authorised licences, amongst others.

 

By an email sent on 19.01.2016, R Co submitted that an amount of Rs. 62.89 lakhs was payable and an invoice of the same was intimated to S Co by email on that day. The invoices relate to documents dated 30.05.2013 and 23.07.2014. S Co, on the other hand, submitted that all the claims depended on invoices raised in the year 2013-14 and were barred by limitation.

 

Next, R Co issued a demand notice u/s. 8(1) on 24.04.2017 without attaching the invoices relating to the debt which was payable. S Co, on the other hand, claimed that it never received the invoices in question.

 

R Co filed an application with the NCLT u/s. 9 of the Code. NCLT dismissed the said petition on the grounds of inconsistency in the overall payments and the non-compliance with the provisions of section 9(3)(c) by the “Operational Creditor”. NCLT further observed that S Co had made certain payments to R Co. R Co then filed an appeal before the NCLAT.

 

HELD

The Appellate Tribunal held that there was no record to show that invoices dated 23.07.2014 were received or forwarded to S Co. Therefore, the demand notice issued on 24.04.2017 as related to i

--->

Past Issues

Flip-Book
HTML View
Current Issue