The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Judicial Member and Kanthi Narahari, Technical Member was hearing an Appeal on Wednesday and held that the Appellant has failed to discharge his burden to bring on record cogent evidence that the goods were actually supplied to the Respondent.
The present appeal was filed by the Operational Creditor against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, by which an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Operational to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor on account of default has been dismissed on the ground of lack of evidence of having supplied the alleged goods.
Facts:
It was alleged that before filing the application under Section 9 of the Code, the Appellant issued the demand notice in terms of Section 8 of the Code on 15.02.2019. The Appellant received a letter from the Respondent wherein it had denied the liability much less the outstanding amount as claimed.
Respondent’s Submission:
In the Reply filed by the Respondent, it was claimed that the invoices raised by the Appellant were bogus in nature. The Appellant has failed to furnish any supporting documents such as weighing slip, challan and purchase orders issued by the Respondent to substantiate its claim. It was further denied by the Respondent that any part payment to the tune of Rs. 9,65,130/- against invoice no. 1 dated 06.07.2016 was made, however, the invoice no. 30 for an amount of Rs. 10,41,290/- was admitted for which payment has allegedly been made.
NCLAT’s Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority, in the impugned order, has made a reference to all the alleged invoices and observed that these transactions were not for supply but for other purposes and came to a conclusion that the Appellant has failed to discharge his burden to bring on record cogent evidence that the goods were actually supplied to the Respondent.
Counsel for the Appellant, fairly conceded before the court that it could not produce the documents before the Respondent for the purpose of claiming the amount.
The Appellate Authority observed that there was no error in the impugned order because the application filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the Appellant failed to lead the evidence much less cogent to prove the supply of goods and when an opportunity was given to the Appellant before this Tribunal and the case was adjourned for a period of one month on the offer made by the Respondent that in case the Appellant produces before it documents even now to prove its case then he shall make the payment. However, the Appellant has miserably failed to produce the documents before the Respondent even within a period of one month and that too on a candid statement made by the Respondent that it would honour its liability in case the evidence was produced before it.
Thus, in view thereof, the absence of any evidence much less cogent, the present appeal lacked merits and was dismissed.
Comentarios