AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
19.01.2023: Heard both sides. The ‘Appellant’ / ‘Operational Creditor’ has focused the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.120/2022, before this ‘Tribunal’, as an ‘Aggrieved Person’, on being dissatisfied with the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.06.2020 in CP (IB) No.128/BB/2020, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) in ‘disposing of’ the Company Petition (‘CP(IB) No.128/BB/2020’)
The ‘Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench), while passing the ‘impugned order’ on 26.06.2020 in CP (IB) No.128/BB/2020 filed (under Section ‘9’ of the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the I&B Code (AAA) Rules, 2016) by the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Operational Creditor’, at ‘Paragraph Nos.8 to 10, among other things, observed, as under:-
“8.It is not in dispute that Petitioner has r e n d e r e d h i s f a i t h f u l s e r v i c e s t o t h e R e s p o n d e n t i n g o o d f a i t h w i t h o u t g e t t i n g h i s f e e s s e t t l e d before his services. Therefore, the Respondent has rejected the case of Petitioner purely on legal grounds by taking advantage of limited scope available to the Petitioner to invoke provisions o f Code. It is t r u e t h a t t h e R e s p o n d e n t c a n l e g a l l y d e n y t h e l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m o f Petitioner by taking advantage of summary proceedings as provided u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f C o d e . I n a n y c a s e , p r o f e s s i o n a l f e e t o a n e x p e r i e n c e d p e r s o n l i k e t h e P e t i t i o n e r c a n n o t b e m e r e t r a v e l l i n g e x p e nses incurred. Though the instant Petition is not maintainable under the provisions of Code , it would be just a n d p r o p e r f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t t o c o n s i d e r t h e c l a i m o f P e t i t i o n e r a t l e a s t t o p a y f o r s o m e a d v o l r e u m a m o u n t b y t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f p r i n c i p l e o f g o o d C o r p o r a t e g o v e r n a n c e , a s t h e P e t i t i o n e r i s s e n i o r C i t i z e n h a v i n g r e n d e r e d s u b s t a n t i a l s e r v i c e t o t h e C o m p a n y a t C r u c i a l t i m e .
9 . F o r t h e a f o r e s a i d r e a s o n s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f c a s e , e v e n t h o u g h t h e i n s t a n t P e t i t i o n i s n o t m a i n t a i n a b l e , a s p e r l a w , w e a r e i n c l i n e d t o d i s p o s e t h e P e t i t i o n b y e x e r c i s i n g i n h e r e n t p o w e r s c o n f e r r e d o n t h e A d j u d i c a t i n g A u t h o r i t y , U n d e r R u l e 1 1 o f N C L T R u l e s , 2 0 1 6 , i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , w i t h d i r e c t i o n s a s m e n t i o n e d b e l o w .
1 0 . I n t h e r e s u l t , C . P . ( I . B ) N o . 1 2 8 / B B / 2 0 2 0 , i s h e r e b y d i s p o s e d o f b y d i r e c t i n g t h e R e s p o n d e n t / C o r p o r a t e D e b t o r , t o s y m p a t h e t i c a l l y c o n s i d e r t h e c a s e o f P e t i t i o n e r t o p a y a t l e a s t r e a s o n a b l e a m o u n t f o r h i s s e r v i c e r e n d e r e d w i t h i n a p e r i o d o f f o u r w e e k s f r o m t h e d a t e o f r e c e i p t o f c o p y o f t h i s O r d e r , a n d c o m m u n i c a t e i t s d e c i s i o n t o t h e P e t i t i o n e r ”
Assailing the ‘propriety’, ‘validity’ and ‘legality’ of the impugned order dated 26.06.2020 in CP (IB) No.128/BB/2020, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench), the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Operational Creditor’, submits that the ‘Appellant’, raised an ‘invoice dated 13.10.2019 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only), in respect of rendering ‘Professional Services’, by attending the ‘Kerala State Commercial Taxes Department’, KVAT and CST, Assessment Proceedings for ‘5 years’ i.e., 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, and these ‘Proceedings’ had continued over a period of 8 years, and for want of reliance, no prejudice by the Respondent, to satisfy the ‘Assessing Officer’, etc. the grievance of the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Operational Creditor’, is that the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.06.2020 in CP (IB) No.128/BB/2020, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench), without application of ‘mind’, and suppressed to the ‘ingredients of Section 8 and 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The other ‘Plea’ put forward by the ‘Appellant’, is that, after finding that ‘reimbursement’ of ‘Travelling Expenses’, would not an amount of payment to ‘Professional Fee’, and the Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench), had incorrectly ‘dismissed’ the main Petition.
Advancing his argument, the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Operational Creditor’, points out that the ‘Fee’ for ‘Professional Services’, constituted as an ‘Operational Debt; and the ‘Invoice’ was not appreciated in ‘proper Direction’ by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) and hence, the ‘impugned order’ order’ dated 26.06.2020 in CP (IB) No.128/BB/2020 came to be passed, causing ‘serious prejudice’, and ‘miscarriage’ of ‘Justice’ to the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Operational Creditor’.
Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the ‘Respondent’ that the ‘Respondent’ had paid the ‘Appellant’ from the year 2014, for its ‘numerous services’ on ‘several dates’, amounting to Rs.9,67,208/- and, in addition, to the above, in order to comply with the order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench), the same was complied with by the Respondent, keeping in mind, the ‘services’ rendered by the ‘Senior Professional’, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) was paid.
The other ‘Plea’ raised by the ‘Appellant’ is that the ‘Respondent’ had paid Rs.10,67,208/-, for the ‘services’ rendered by the ‘Appellant’ and his ‘Associates’.
The Learned Counsel for the ‘Respondent’ contends that the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.120/2022 deserves to be ‘dismissed’, ‘in Limine’, and further, that the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.06.2020 in CP (IB) No.128/BB/2020, is rightly passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench), which requires ‘no interference’ in the hands of this ‘Tribunal’, citing in the ‘Appeal’.
This ‘Tribunal’ has ‘Heard, the Learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and ‘noticed’ their contentions.
As far as the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.120/2022 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the ‘Respondent’ had paid a sum of Rs.10,67,208/- in respect of the ‘Services’ rendered by the ‘Appellant’ and his ‘Associates’ (including a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, paid by the Respondent, pursuant to the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) on 26.06.2020.
To put it precisely, according to the ‘Respondent’, the ‘Appellant’ was paid, for ‘services rendered on numerous dates’, is a sum of Rs.9,67,208/-.
In fact, the crystalline stand of the ‘Respondent’ is that the ‘Appellant’ was paid with a total sum of Rs.10,67,208/-.
Considering the fact that the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a summary proceeding and the Code is an inbuilt and self-contained one and the Proceedings are not to be decided, like that of a ‘Suit’, before a ‘Competent Civil Court’, taking note of the fact that the ‘Respondent’, at any cost, is not accepting the case of the ‘Appellant’, in regard to the ‘Fees’ required by him and the ‘plea’ of the Respondent is ‘not moonshine’, this ‘Tribunal’, at this juncture, simpliciter deems it fit that directing the ‘Appellant’ to resort to approach the ‘Competent Forum’ for redressal of its grievances, in regard to the amount, claimed by the ‘Appellant’, for the services rendered, if he so ‘desires’ / ‘advised’.
Viewed in that perspective, this ‘Tribunal’ is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 26.06.2020 in CP (IB) No.128/BB/2020 passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench). Conversely, we are in ‘complete agreement’, with the view, taken by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) in CP (IB) No.128/BB/2020 dated 26.06.2020, and it is ‘devoid of merits’.
In fine, the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.120/2022 is ‘dismissed’. No Costs. Before parting with the Case, this ‘Tribunal’ makes it lucidly quite clear that the ‘dismissal’ of the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.120/2022, will not preclude the ‘Appellant’, to approach the ‘Competent Forum’, for ‘redressal’ of his ‘grievances’, of course, in ‘Law’ and in accordance with ‘Law’, if so ‘desires’ / ‘advised’.