Mukund Rajhans Vs Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited (NCLAT Delhi)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) recently rendered a crucial judgment in the case of Mukund Rajhans versus Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited. This article delves into the intricate details and implications of the NCLAT’s decision, which pertains to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The case revolves around outstanding dues to an operational creditor and the disputations raised by the parties involved.
The appeal was filed by Mr. Mukund Rajhans, the Suspended Director of Topaki Media Private Limited (TMPL), challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, admitting the application under Section 9 of the IBC. The crux of the matter lies in TMPL’s contention that despite the debt being disputed, the adjudicating authority proceeded with the initiation of CIRP.
TMPL’s argument revolves around its role as an agent of Videocon Industries Limited (VIL) while dealing with the respondent, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited. It asserts that it cannot be held liable for the dues owed by VIL and challenges the validity of the demand notice issued under Section 8 of the IBC.
On the other hand, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, the operational creditor, contends that there exists a clear debt and default, satisfying the requirements under Section 9 of the IBC. It emphasizes the proper service of the demand notice and highlights TMPL’s acknowledgment of the unpaid invoices.
