L. Padmanabha Chari vs. Prateek Apparels Private Limited
Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.120/2022
Facts:
1.An Application under Section 9 of the Code was filed by the appellant which was dismissed by the AA as not maintainable under the Code. Appellant is challenging the order of the AA dismissing the application.
Issue: Whether order passed by the AA was correct ?
Arguments:
Appellant:
1.Counsel for the ‘Appellant’ submitted that the ‘Appellant’, raised an ‘invoice dated 13.10.2019 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000 in respect of rendering ‘Professional Services’, by attending the ‘Kerala State Commercial Taxes Department’, KVAT and CST, Assessment Proceedings for ‘5 years’ i.e., 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012- 2013 and 2013-2014, and these ‘Proceedings’ had continued over a period of 8 years, and for want of reliance, no prejudice by the Respondent, to satisfy the ‘Assessing Officer’, etc. the grievance of the ‘Appellant’
2.It was argued that after finding that ‘reimbursement’ of ‘Travelling Expenses’, would not an amount of payment to ‘Professional Fee’, and the Adjudicating Authority’, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench), had incorrectly ‘dismissed’ the main Petition. It was submitted that the ‘Fee’ for ‘Professional Services’, constituted as an ‘Operational Debt; and the ‘Invoice’ was not appreciated in ‘proper Direction’ by the AA.
For Respondent:
1.Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that the ‘Respondent’ had paid the ‘Appellant’ from the year 2014, for its ‘numerous services’ on ‘several dates’, amounting to Rs.9,67,208/- and, in addition, to the above, in order to comply with the order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the AA the same was complied with by the Respondent, keeping in mind, the ‘services’ rendered by the ‘Senior Professional’, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
Decision: Order passed by the AA was correct.
Rationale:
1.NCLAT noted that Considering the fact that the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a summary proceeding and the Code is an inbuilt and self-contained one and the Proceedings are not to be decided, like that of a ‘Suit’, before a ‘Competent Civil Court’, taking note of the fact that the ‘Respondent’, at any cost, is not accepting the case of the ‘Appellant’, in regard to the ‘Fees’ required by him and the ‘plea’ of the Respondent is ‘not moonshine’, this ‘Tribunal’, at this juncture, simpliciter deems it fit that directing the ‘Appellant’ to resort to approach the ‘Competent Forum’ for redressal of its grievances, in regard to the amount, claimed by the ‘Appellant’, for the services rendered, if he so ‘desires’ / ‘advised.
Order:
