Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 116 views

    Written Submission On Behalf of The Operational Creditor in Terms of Order Dated 28.11.2018 Passed by This Hon'Ble Tribunal

    Uploaded by

    Aatif Iqbal
    Jyoti Limited has filed an application against Prasad and Company as an operational creditor for non-payment of 25% of the amount owed for materials supplied. Prasad has argued there is a dispute but has not provided any evidence. Additionally, Prasad admitted that only 75% of the payment was made and the remaining 25% is due. Jyoti argues that Prasad cannot avoid responsibility by claiming the government suspended the project, and that partial payment does not absolve Prasad of its obligations. Jyoti requests the tribunal rule in its favor as Prasad has not disputed the debt and its own admissions establish the claim is valid under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Written Submission On Behalf of The Operational Creditor in Terms of Order Dated 28.11.2018 Passed by This Hon'Ble Tribunal

    Uploaded by

    Aatif Iqbal
    116 views5 pages
    Jyoti Limited has filed an application against Prasad and Company as an operational creditor for non-payment of 25% of the amount owed for materials supplied. Prasad has argued there is a dispute but has not provided any evidence. Additionally, Prasad admitted that only 75% of the payment was made and the remaining 25% is due. Jyoti argues that Prasad cannot avoid responsibility by claiming the government suspended the project, and that partial payment does not absolve Prasad of its obligations. Jyoti requests the tribunal rule in its favor as Prasad has not disputed the debt and its own admissions establish the claim is valid under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

    Original Description:

    company law

    Original Title

    NCLT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jyoti Limited has filed an application against Prasad and Company as an operational creditor for non-payment of 25% of the amount owed for materials supplied. Prasad has argued there is a dispute but has not provided any evidence. Additionally, Prasad admitted that only 75% of the payment was made and the remaining 25% is due. Jyoti argues that Prasad cannot avoid responsibility by claiming the government suspended the project, and that partial payment does not absolve Prasad of its obligations. Jyoti requests the tribunal rule in its favor as Prasad has not disputed the debt and its own admissions establish the claim is valid under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    116 views5 pages

    Written Submission On Behalf of The Operational Creditor in Terms of Order Dated 28.11.2018 Passed by This Hon'Ble Tribunal

    Uploaded by

    Aatif Iqbal
    Jyoti Limited has filed an application against Prasad and Company as an operational creditor for non-payment of 25% of the amount owed for materials supplied. Prasad has argued there is a dispute but has not provided any evidence. Additionally, Prasad admitted that only 75% of the payment was made and the remaining 25% is due. Jyoti argues that Prasad cannot avoid responsibility by claiming the government suspended the project, and that partial payment does not absolve Prasad of its obligations. Jyoti requests the tribunal rule in its favor as Prasad has not disputed the debt and its own admissions establish the claim is valid under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 5

    BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

    HYDERABAD BENCH
    CP (IB) No. 413/9/HDB/2018
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    JYOTI LIMITED
    ....APPLICANT/OPERATIONAL CREDITOR
    VERSUS
    PRASAD AND COMPANY(PROJECT WORKS) LIMITED
    .…CORPORATE DEBTOR

    INDEX
    S.NO PARTICULARS PAGES.
    1. WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE
    OPERATIONAL CREDITOR IN TERMS OF
    ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED BY THIS
    HON’BLE TRIBUNAL.

    THROUGH,
    DHIR & DHIR ASSOCIATES
    ADVOCATES FOR OPERATIONAL CREDITOR
    105, 1ST FLOOR, SHANGRI-LA PLAZA
    ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS
    HYDERABAD-500034
    TEL: 040-42208077
    PLACE: HYDERABAD
    DATED: 13.12.2018
    BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

    HYDERABAD BENCH

    CP (IB) No. 413/9/HDB/2018

    IN THE MATTER OF:

    JYOTI LIMITED

    ....APPLICANT/OPERATIONAL CREDITOR

    VERSUS

    PRASAD AND COMPANY(PROJECT WORKS) LIMITED

    .…CORPORATE DEBTOR

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATE DEBTOR


    IN TERMS OF ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE
    TRIBUNAL.

    That the instant written submission is being filed in terms of order dated dated
    1.08.2018 passed by this Hon’ble tribunal. The operational creditor, at the outset
    states that the claims of the corporate debtor are wrong and denied on the following
    grounds:

    1. THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THE MATTER.


     It is submitted that the corporate debtor has failed to bring on record any
    document/ record/ evidence to substantiate that there exists a dispute in the
    instant case, the said facts goes on establishing that the dispute, purportedly
    attempted to be created by the corporate debtor in the instant case, is a feeble
    dispute, which has no legs to stand, the same accordingly deserves no
    consideration from this Hon’ble tribunal.
     In order to invoke the dispute clause enshrined under section 8(2)(a), the
    corporate debtor is required to bring to the notice of operational creditor about
    the existence of dispute within 10 days, which has not been done in the
    present case. It is further denied that a common reply to the section 8 was sent
    by JV. It is submitted that the said reply has no value in the eyes of law as
    IBC does not recognize the joint ventures and that the corporate debtor being
    a separate entity was required to specifically reply to the section 8 IBC notice
    issued by the Applicant. The reply made by the corporate debtor on
    18.06.2018 and 28.06.2018 holds no value in the eyes of law as they were sent
    after the expiry of statutory period of 10 days as prescribed in terms of section
    8.
     In the above regard reference is drawn to para 8 of the reply statement wherein
    corporate debtor has himself admitted that there is no dispute to the fact that
    only 75% of payment has been made to the operational creditor and rest 25%
    is still due. This sufficiently proves that there is no dispute as to the percentage
    of amount which is being claimed by the operational creditor.
     In addition to the above, it is relevant to point out here that no dispute was
    ever raised by the corporate debtor prior to the instant application being
    preferred by the applicant nor any notice of dispute was sent by the corporate
    debtor in its own capacity as a separate entity in response to the section 8
    notice of IBC.
    2. PARTIAL PAYMENT OF THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED.
     It is submitted that the corporate debtor has himself admitted that the
    operational creditor has supplied the goods as per the purchase order dated
    26.02.2014 at the site for which the respondent has already made payment of
    75% and the same is not disputed. The corporate debtor has himself agreed
    that he has not paid the rest 25% of the due amount to the applicant.
     It is further submitted that the Applicant cannot be made to suffer on account
    of the suspension of work. The Applicant cannot be made to wait for eternity
    on account of nonperformance of obligation by the corporate debtor. The fact
    that the Government of Maharashtra has suspended the erection and
    commissioning part of the contract does not takes away the right of the
    applicant to claim the rest 25% of amount as there is no fault on the part of
    the Applicant as they have already made investment so as to fulfill the
    obligation under the purchase order.
     It is relevant to mention here that the corporate debtor itself admits its liability
    towards the applicant, therefore the corporate debtor is liable to pay the claim
    amount to the applicant. In view of corporate debtor’s own admission
    regarding its inability to meet its contractual commitment in terms of the
    purchase order, the corporate debtor is barred by the principle of ‘Commodum
    ex injuria sua nemo’ i.e. ( no party can take undue advantage of his own
    wrong). The applicant can’t be made to suffer because of the fault of the
    corporate debtor and thus, it’s claim indeed comes within the ambit of section
    3(6) of the IBC.

    In view of the submissions made hereinabove and the facts and circumstances of
    the present case, it is clear that the present petition seeks to clarify the situation
    of the operational creditor and it is clear that the corporate debtor is trying to
    avoid his responsibility in accord to his own wonng. Therefore, it is most
    respectfully prayed that before the Hon’ble tribunal to rule in favour of the
    applicant.

    THROUGH:

    DHIR & DHIR ASSOCIATES


    ADVOCATES FOR OPERATIONAL CREDITOR
    105, 1ST FLOOR, SHANGRI-LA PLAZA
    ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS
    HYDERABAD-500034
    TEL: 040-42208077
    PLACE: HYDERABAD.
    DATED: 13.12.2018

    You might also like