Case Law Details
Neeraj Jain Vs Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT)
we have found that demand notice delivered under Section 8(1) of the Code was not proper and was also incomplete. The Operational Creditor failed to submit any documents to prove in existence of the Operational debt and the amount in The Operational Creditor also failed to submit the copy of invoices and copies of all the documents referred in the application to be submitted in Form 5, under Section 9 of the Code. The Operational Creditor has failed to submit the relevant documents under which the debt has become due. The Operational Creditor has only filed the copy of the Supply Agreement, and the projections email, which by themselves can by no stretch of the imagination constitute proof of debt. The Operational Creditor had not filed a copy of the bank statement. Instead of filing the relevant document, the Operational Creditor had solely placed reliance on a few emails to allege that he had suffered losses on account of projections for the demand provided by Flipkart. The figures provided by Flipkart were only projections that do not constitute the binding purchase order under the Supply Agreement. It is also clear that before issuance of demand notice, Operational Creditor had itself issued a notice against the Corporate Debtor with a request of making the payment within 30 days, failing which the dispute was said to be referred to the Arbitrator. This notice was withdrawn before issuance of demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Code. But by withdrawing the said notice, the dispute does not cease to exist. The entire claim of the Corporate Debtor is an uncrystallised claim which cannot be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority under summary jurisdiction. In the circumstances, it appears that the Appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority admitting the petition, deserves to be set aside.
We set aside the impugned order dated 24th October 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the application filed under Section 9 by the Operational Creditor Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt Ltd., company petition –CP (IB)260/BB/2019 is Rejected. The Flipkart India Pvt Ltd (‘Corporate Debtor’) is released from the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’. ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ will handover the records and assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ to the Promoter immediately, who will manage the ‘Corporate Debtor’. The Appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to pass an order for payment of CIRP cost.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
This Appeal emanates from the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru in C.P. (IB) No.260/BB/2019, whereby the Adjudicating Authority has admitted the Application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) against the ‘Corporate Debtor’, filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (in short‘I&B Code’) on 24th October 2019, in the case of Neeraj Jain, Director of M/s Flipkart India Private Limited Vs. M/s Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The parties are referred to by their original status in the Company Petition for the sake of convenience.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
