Tribunal Not To Enter Into Evidence And Record Findings Like A Civil Court: NCLAT Delhi
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Dr. Alok Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), while adjudicating an appeal filed in Avneet Goyal v Radha Kishan Gobind Ram Ltd., has held that Tribunal does have not to enter into evidence and record findings like a...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Dr. Alok Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), while adjudicating an appeal filed in Avneet Goyal v Radha Kishan Gobind Ram Ltd., has held that Tribunal does have not to enter into evidence and record findings like a Civil Court.
Background Facts
Mr. Avneet Goyal ("Operational Creditor") had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC"), seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against Radha Kishan Gobind Ram Ltd. ("Corporate Debtor").
The Corporate Debtor had opposed the petition while contending that there was no supply made by the Operational Creditor and no delivery was received by the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority had rejected the petition vide an order dated 13.09.2022, accepting the defence of the Corporate Debtor.
The Operational Creditor filed an appeal before NCLAT against the Order dated 13.09.2022. It was contended that certain observations have been made in the order dated 13.09.2022, which may be prejudicial to the Operational Creditor, if the matter is taken in a regular court for its establishing case.
Decision Of NCLAT
The Bench opined that in proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC, the Tribunal has not to enter into evidence and record findings like a Civil Court. Relying on the defence of the Corporate Debtor, the Section 9 petition has been rejected. The order dated 13.09.2022 does not warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
"We are of the view that in Section 9 proceeding the Court has not to enter into evidence and record findings like a Civil Court. Prima facie relying on the defence of the Corporate Debtor the Section 9 application has been rejected. We do not find any error in the rejection of section 9 application which may warrant interference in the impugned order in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction."
The Bench dismissed the Appeal and clarified that the dismissal of Section 9 application shall not preclude the Operational Creditor from taking any such remedy as available in law.
Case Title: Avneet Goyal v Radha Kishan Gobind Ram Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1388 of 2022
Counsel For Appellants: Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Bajaj and Mr. Arpit Kumar Singh, Advocates.
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Vinay K. Gupta and Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocates.