AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 3083 of 2024:- Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no delay in the appeal since certified copy was applied on 28.02.2024 and it was delivered on 11.03.2024 and if the aforesaid period is excluded, the appeal is filed within 30 days.
We find sufficient substance in the submission of the Counsel for the Appellant. Certified copy filed indicate the date of applying certified copy i.e. on 28.02.2024 and date of delivery of copy on 11.03.2024. We hold that the appeal is within time.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 853 of 2024 :-
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench-IV by which order Adjudicating Authority rejected Section 9 application filed by the Appellant. Appellant’s claim to be a sub-contractor who was given a contract for carrying out certain works and the corporate debtor had sub-contracted the operational creditor for work orders obtained for maintenance works from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. The operational creditor filed the claim of Rs.1,54,19,784.22/-. Adjudicating Authority has noticed the details of the claim in paragraph 14 which is as follows:-
“14. The Bench observes that the Operational Creditor's claim of Rs. 1,54,19,784.22/- comprises of the following:
i) Rs. 94,43,177/- Security deposit,
ii) Rs.36,92,134/- Work Contract Tax,
iii) Rs.22,28,448/- against invoice no. 005 (Rs.20,73,632/-) and 003 (Rs.1,54,816/-) dated 05.01.2019 & 03.01.2019 respectively.”
Insofar as the claim of Rs.94,43,177/-, it was noticed that the works done during the period 2011 to 2015 and petition was filed on 05.03.2021, hence, the claim was barred by time.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the supervisor there in the Chennai office and an authorised officer has given an acknowledgment on 27.10.2020 due to which there shall be acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 and limitation shall be extended. Adjudicating Authority has noticed the submission and has held that the work at Chennai office was closed and unit was closed in the year 2016 and administrative control was shifted to the Mumbai unit and therefore, acknowledgment issued by supervisor was unauthorised and the Corporate Debtor had written to supervisor to abstain from issuing such financial certificate and he was not authorised to do so.
We find that the reasons given by the Adjudicating Authority of not accepting the said letter as acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 is fully justified. When the unit was closed in 2016 and administrative office was shifted to Mumbai, supervisor sitting at Chennai could not have acknowledged the debt. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the claim of Rs.94,43,177/- could not have been entertained. We exclude the claim of Rs.94,43,177/-. Other claims do not fulfil the threshold. Hence, we do not find any error in the impugned order rejecting Section 9 application. The appeal is dismissed.