AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 22.11.2023 rejecting Section 9 application filed by the Appellant. Appellant has filed petition as an Operational Creditor claiming an operational debt of Rs.1,02,20,129/-. The Adjudicating Authority noticed that the Purchase Orders were issued by different hospitals. The three associated companies have different CIN and separate assets and liabilities. It was held that by clubbing the claims which were issued against different entities, the Applicant sought to fulfil the threshold of Rs.1 Crore. The Adjudicating Authority held that the claim cannot be clubbed, hence, rejected the Section 9 application. In Para 4 of the impugned order following has been held:
“4. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Applicant and the Respondent as well as perusing the record, contention by the CD that all the three associated companies of CD have three different CIN, separate assets and liabilities stands right. Similarly, the claims of OC against other entities of CD, Max Super Specialty Hospital, Max Smart Super Specialty and Max Super Specialty Hospital are situated at two different places, namely, Saket and Patparganj. The Petitioner has purposefully, in order to bring the company claim within threshold limit clubbed the claims against different entities of the Corporate Debtor and filed the present company petition which is not maintainable in law.”
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the debt was acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor which is parent entity of all three hospitals, hence, the application ought not to have been rejected.
We have considered the submission of the Appellant and perused the record.
When separate Purchase Orders were issued by the three hospitals, as noted in the order and invoices were also issued separately, the mere fact that parent company of the three hospitals is same, the Appellant cannot club all the invoices and try to complete the threshold by claiming debt of Rs.1,02,20,129/- whereas with regard to each invoice threshold is not complete, as observed by the Adjudicating Authority in Para 4. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order rejecting Section 9 application. The Appeal is dismissed.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent that Appellant has already initiated proceedings for these claims by way of a Civil Suit, hence, there is pre-existing dispute also.