AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
10.02.2026: Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal has been filed against an order dated 17.09.2025, by which Section 9 application filed by the respondent has been admitted.
Respondent filed an application claiming amount of Rs.4,27,89,552.64/-. The adjudicating authority issued notice. The corporate debtor filed its reply. After hearing the parties, adjudicating authority has admitted Section 7 application, aggrieved by which order, this appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order raised three submissions. The first submission raised by the appellant is that application is barred by time, since date of default mentioned in the application was 07.01.2020, whereas, the application was filed on August, 2023. It is further submitted that the threshold was not fulfilled, since there was no running account and the last invoice which was only of Rs.19 lakhs and odd which did not fulfil the threshold. He further submits that demand notice which was issued on 29.04.2023, in which the details have been given on the particulars of the operational debt of Rs.4,27,89,552/- and it was mentioned that the default is made i.e., from 16.12.2019 till 29.04.2023, whereas the application which was filed in Section 9 was not in accordance with the demand notice, hence the application ought not to have been admitted.
We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
Coming to the arguments on the limitation, admittedly the date of default mentioned in Part IV is 07.01.2020 and the application was filed in August, 2023. The operational creditor was clearly entitled for the benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Re: Cognizance for extension of Limitation’ in [Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020] and the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 deserves to be excluded, hence the application was not barred by time.
Coming to the question of threshold, the amount claimed in the demand notice as well as Part IV is same i.e., Rs.4,27,89,552/-. The mere fact that last invoice was of only Rs.19 lakhs and odd, hence the threshold is not complete does not commend us. Part IV clearly pleaded in the application that various invoices from 07.05.2019 to 31.12.2019 which invoices were produced as Annexure – C to the application. Thus, threshold has to be determined on basis of the invoices taking all the invoices and cannot confine to only last invoice of Rs. 19 lakhs. It was further pleaded that 9 cheques were given of various amounts to the operational creditor which all were dishonoured and which cheques were issued subsequent to date of invoice which is noted in the impugned order. We, thus are of the view that the application fully fulfils the threshold and there is no substance in the said argument.
The last submission made by the appellant is that Part IV of the application has to be in accordance with the demand notice. As noted above, demand notice also claimed amount, the amount in default Rs.4,27,89,552/- whereas in the demand notice, it was mentioned that the default is made from 16.12.2019 till 29.04.2023, whereas in Part IV of the application, statement has been made that various invoices dated 07.05.2019 to 23.12.2019 was issued which has been filed as Annexure – C. We do not find any inconsistency with the demand notice and Part IV so as to hold the application not maintainable. Thus, the above submission also does not have any substance.
The adjudicating authority after recording the finding of debt and default has admitted Section 7 application in which we do not find any error.
The appeal is dismissed.