Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3. GT Polymers v. Pre - We find that in this case in reply to the notice the
Keshava Medi Existing Respondent has raised a vague and baseless allegation
Devices Pvt. Ltd. Dispute against the Appellant which are not supported by any
must be documentary evidence. Therefore, we are of the view
NCLAT genuine
that the dispute is spurious or hypothetical, hence the
[Company Appeal Adjudicatory Authority has to reject such defence.
(AT) (Ins) No. 1266 @pa.16
of 2019]
The Adjudicating Authority wrongly rejected the
claim on the ground that the claim raised by the
Appellant falls within the ambit of disputed claim.
Merely disputing a claim cannot be a ground, as held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Innovative
Industries Ltd Vs ICICI Bank and Anr. wherein it is
observed that “claim means a right to payment even it
is disputed. The Code gets triggered the moment the
default of Rs.1 Lakh or more”. @para.20
4. P Vijay Kumar v. Corporate The ground raised to offset the triggering of Corporate
Priya Trading Debtor Insolvency Resolution Process at the instance of ‘Priya
Company cannot Trading Company’ as Operational Creditor’ by taking
take the plea of there being no privity of contract between the
NCLAT plea of
lack of ‘Operational Creditor’ and the ‘Corporate Debtor’
[Company Appeal privity of falls flat and has to be dismissed as being absurd and
(AT) (Insolvency) No. contract repugnant to the admitted position in regard to the
204 of 2019] status and locus standi of the ‘Operational Creditor’.
Contention raised on this score is rebuffed. @para. 6