Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 07 NCLT CK 3569

M/s. Pani Logistics vs Jagadishchandra B Mistri

National Company Law Tribunal · Decided on 31 July 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shammi Khan, Member (Judicial) · Ajai Das Mehrotra, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
IA 508 of 2020 in CP(IB) 586 of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

9 paragraphs · 309 words

ORDER

The case is fixed for pronouncement of order.

The order is pronounced in open Court vide separate sheet.

ORDER

1.

The present application is filed against the partial rejection of the claim of the applicant by the Resolution Professional (RP). As against the claim of Rs.7,33,18,539/-, Resolution Professional had admitted claim of Rs.4,99,63,951/-.

2.

We have gone through the records and submissions made by both sides. It is admitted fact that there is no written loan agreement between the applicant and the Corporate Debtor. Resolution Professional has admitted the claims of the applicant as per the audited books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor. As per audited books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor, closing balance due to the applicant as on 01.04.2020 was Rs.4,99,63,951/- and the same was admitted by the Resolution Professional. Resolution Professional had submitted that applicant was unable to produce any documents or evidence to controvert the balance shown in the books of accounts. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Original / Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition (Civil) No.99 of 2018 that Resolution Professional is given administrative as opposed to quasi-judicial powers. Relevant portion of the said judgement is extracted below:

“59… It is clear from a reading of these Regulations that the Resolution Professional is given administrative as opposed to quasi-judicial powers. In fact, even when the Resolution Professional is to make a determination under Regulation 35A, he is only to apply to the Adjudicating Authority for appropriate relief…”

3.

Resolution Professional had admitted the claim of Rs.4,99,63,951/- based on the records and audited books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor and his action in doing so cannot be faulted with.

4.

As sequel to the above discussion, application is rejected and disposed of.