Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2022) 03 NCLT CK 0006

Adinath InternationalnPrivate Limited vs AVR Overseas Private Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 4 March 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dharminder Singh, Member (J) · Sumita Purkayastha, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Company Petition No. IB 348/ND/2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 995 words

Sumita Puricavastha, Member (Technical)

1.

This is an application  filed by M/s Adinath International  Private Limited the    applicant/operational    creditor   seeking (for   brevity   Operational Creditor)  to initiate CIRP against the Respondent company/Corporate Debtor (for brevity Corporate Debtor) M/s AVR Overseas Private Limited., under Section 9 of IBC 2016 for the alleged default on the part of the Corporate Debtor having an outstanding balance of Rs. 38,28,521/- on account of providing licenses for exporting various kind of material to the corporate debtor. The details of transactions leading to the filing of this petition as averred by the applicant are as follows:-

a.  The Operational creditor is involved in the business of export and import of commodities. In pursuance to the same, the corporate debtor contacted operational creditor through one of its client i.e Arinitis Sales Private Limited as the operational creditor holds good reputation  for their services in providing various licenses which are required  for exporting items to other countries from excise and custom department.

b.  It is submitted that the operational creditor entered into business relationship with  Lhe  corporate  debtor to  facilitate  availing of various types of licenses.

c.     Further it is stated that for the services performed, invoice dated 27.05.2017 was raised on the corporate debtor and due to the services of the operational creditor, the following licenses were raised to the corporate debtor which is as follows:

a.   License   No.  3319009132   and   3319009133 dated 17.05.2017

b.  License No. 3319007627 dated 14.02.2016

c.   License No. 3319009070 dated 09.05.2017

d.  License No. 0519078778 dated 15.05.2017

e.   License No. 0519068188 dated 04.01.2017

f.   License No. 0519072943 dated 06.03.2017

g.   License   No. 0519073252   and   0519073254 dated 08.03.2017

h.  License No. 0519076256 dated 12.04.2017

Copy of the  Invoice  dated 27.05.2017  is annexed along with.  Further  the  copy  of license  issued  by  the  Indian Customs EDI Systems is also annexed.

d.  It  is  further  submitted   that  the  copy  of  the  ledger  account maintained   by   the   operational   creditor   from 01.04.2017   to 31.03.2018 and 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 showing the failure of the     corporate     debtor     to     clear    the    unpaid     invoice     dated 27.05.2017 has been filed on record.

e.   The applicant sent demand notice under Section 8 of the code on 04.11.2019 calling upon  the corporate debtor to pay the total amount of Rs.  38,28,521/-. The Copy of demand notice along with postal receipts and the tracking reports has been annexed.

2.

The Corporate Debtor in its reply to the application submits that:-

a.  That  the  authorized  representative  of Arinits  Sales  Pvt.   Ltd, Ashish Chopra stated that as he had to settle the accounts with dealers, he was under obligations to offer such an offer, therefore he asked for a part payment through banking channels and part payments through cash as some of the dealers wanted cash in returns.  Further  Ashish  Chopra  had  gained  the  trust  of the company over a period of time, the company paid Rs.31,0000/ -in cash through its director, after borrowing the same from family and   friends   and    Rs. 3,41,79,221/-   through   various   bank channel.

Copy of the invoice and the LC has been placed on record.

b.  It  is  submitted  that  in  the  month  of January,  2016,  Ashish Chopra showed his inability to honor the whole contract on the pretext of inferior good quality of the product and supplied goods of 510  Mt  PVC   Raisins  of an  amount  of Rs.   3,41,79,221/-. Furthermore it is submitted that on believing him, the corporate debtor   granted   him   time   to   make   the   aforesaid   remaining payment.

c.   Further in the month of April, 2017, a meeting was held with Mr. Ashish Chopra and the applicant wherein it was decided that the applicant will provide the import license to the corporate debtor, however the  payment of the  said  license  will  be  paid  by Mr. Ashish   Chopra   as   the   applicant   owed   an   amount   of  Rs. 40,00,000/-   to   Mr.   Ashish   Chopra's  company  Arinits   Sales Private Limited.

3.

We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels for the applicant and all the respondents and perused the case records. In order to establish its claim, the applicant has placed copy of the invoice dated 27.05.2019 and copies of Licenses alleged to have been issued in the favour of corporate  debtor,  but  neither  the  invoice  is  acknowledged  nor  the licenses were signed by the corporate debtor. The ledger placed by the applicant is also not acknowledged or verified by the corporate debtor. The applicant has not placed any other document to show that the claimed operational debt is due and payable by the corporate debtor. Further, no communication or agreement has been placed before this Tribunal to establish the fact that the claim amount is due and payable by the respondent. Unless any cogent and convincing evidence is there on  the  record,  merely  on  the  basis of some  invoices  and copies  of licenses, it could not be proved that the applicant herein was engaged by the respondent to arrange those licenses for the corporate debtor. Moreover,   there   must  be   some  Tripartite   agreement  between   the applicant,   corporate  debtor  and   the  licenses  issuance  authorities, however, that is lacking. Thus, in the absence of any reliable evidence, it  could  not be  established  that  the  applicant herein was  actually engaged by the corporate debtor to arrange licenses for it.  Accordingly, as per Section 9 of the Code, the applicant has failed to establish its claim against the respondent corporate debtor.

4.

In view of the abovesaid discussion, the applicant measurably failed to establish the fact that its operational debt is payable by the respondent corporate  debtor,  thus  the  present application  being devoid  of any merit, stand rejected without any costs.

5.

We make it clear that any observations made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the controversy and the right of the Applicants before any other forum shall not be prejudiced on account of dismissal of instant application.

Let the copy of the order he served to the parties.

File be consigned to record room.