MR. AJIT KUMAR Resolution Professional for M/s Jadoun International Pvt. Ltd vs SUSPENDED BOARD OF DIRECTOR
IA(IBC)No.359/JPR/2019 In IB No. 707(PB)/2018
Facts:
1.The Financial Creditor namely M/s Indus Container Lines Pvt. Ltd. had preferred an application under Section 7 of IBC seeking initiation of CIRP against M/s Jadoun International Pvt. Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’). This Authority vide order dated 25.01.2019 initiated CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and appointed Mr. Ajit Kumar as the IRP. Pursuant to the Order, the RP made a public announcement in accordance with Section 15 on 29.01.2019.
2.A letter was preferred to the Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor intimating the initiation of CIRP and declaration of moratorium. The RP after scrutinizing the books of the accounts of the Corporate Debtor found that its assets are significantly insufficient to its liability.
3.Applicant preferred a letter dated 26.03.2019 to the Respondent No. 2 asking it to clear the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 41,07,291/- for rendering the freight service. The present application is filed for recovery of amounts.
Issue: Whether the application for recovery of amounts can be allowed under section 60(5) of the Code?
Arguments:
For Respondent:
1.Respondent raised substantial dispute for the alleged amount and raised a plea with regard to agreement between the parties prior to to initiation of CIRP for adjustment of accounts with related entities of the Corporate Debtor namely M/s Radharani Exports Pvt Ltd. and Jagannath Marbles. Also, it was only after the contentions of the Respondent No. 2 that the avoidance applications against its sister concerns of the Corporate Debtor vide IA No. 360/2019 along with Forensic Audit Report.
2.Respondent has contended that the Corporate Debtor had only one Director namely Mr. Saurabh Singh, at the time of initiation of CIRP, who was also the director of more companies namely, M/s Radha Rani Export Pvt Ltd., M/s Jadoun Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and partly managing the Sole Proprietorship Firm namely Jagganath Marbles & Granites. Moreover, the Application has been filed on the basis of invoice dated 20.07.2016 after expiry of a period of three years.
Decision: NCLT dismissed the application.
Rationale:
1.NCLT noted that For adjudication of disputes and recovery of sums the RP is empowered to approach relevant competent authorities.
2.It held that The Resolution Professional in the present matter has approached this forum for recovery of debt which is allegedly owed by the Respondent No. 2 to the Corporate Debtor whereas it has forgotten the underlying principle which enunciates that this is not a debt recovery forum. There is no doubt that the Resolution Professional has ample powers to proceed and protect the debts of the Corporate Debtor, but it cannot do so by merely filing an Application under Section 60(5) of the Code in the pending CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
Order Copy:
