NGT orders LG Polymers to deposit Rs 50 crores. (Download full order)

The National Green Tribunal took suo motu cognisance of the gas leak incident in Vizag that left at least 11 people dead and affected several others.

The leak of hazardous styrene gas at the Visakhapatnam plant in the early hours of Thursday killed at least 11 people and exposed hundreds of other people in nearby villages to serious health issues.

NGT bench headed by chairperson Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel asked the company to pay the initial deposit with the district magistrate of Visakhapatnam and also sought a response from the Centre.

“The committee may specifically report on the sequence of events, causes of failure and persons and authorities responsible, extent of damage to life, human and non-human, public health and environment – including water, soil and air, steps to be taken for compensation of victims and restitution of the damaged property and environment and the cost involved,” the bench said.

The tribunal also set up a five-member fact-finding committee comprising former AP High Court judge Justice B Seshasayana Reddy; V Rama Chandra Murthy, Former Vice Chancellor, Andhra University, Vizag; Professor Pulipati King, Head of Chemical Engineering Department, Andhra University; CPCB Member Secretary, CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Technology Director, and head of NEERI in Visakhapatnam.

Read the full order below:-

Appellate Authority (NCLAT) set aside the order of NCLT dismissing application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the ground of claim barred by limitation and existence of dispute.

M/s Gupshup Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) filed application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I&B Code’) against ‘M/s Interpid Online Retail Pvt. Ltd.’ (‘Corporate Debtor’) which having rejected by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru by order dated 8th November, 2018, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.

The Adjudicating Authority held that the claim is barred by limitation and there is existence of dispute.

Appellant states that the record of the services carried out as on 5th September, 2017 shows that the Respondent availed the services through the SMS Dashboard and had its own dedicated user name and password for logging. However, the Respondent in their email dated 5th September, 2017 sought details of email logs and other supporting documents in order to verify the invoices. 7. The Appellant issued a Demand Notice under Section 8(1) on 24th October, 2017 and for the first time the Respondent in its reply under Section 8(2) by intimation dated 3rd November, 2017 raised false and frivolous allegations After completion of more than 10 days, the Appellant filed an application under Section 9.

On notice, the Respondent has appeared and filed reply affidavit. But learned Counsel for the Respondent failed to produce before the Appellate Tribunal any letter or email to suggest that a dispute was raised about the SMS services prior to the issue of Demand Notice dated 24th October, 2017.

Therefore it is held by the Appellate Authority t that the Respondent has not disputed that the Appellant has provided text SMS services to the Respondent through internet. The Respondent has availed the services pursuant to the contract in question from time to time till the Appellant terminated the services.

By referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour in the matter “Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Ors. – (2018) 1 SCC 407”, it is clear that Section 3(6) defines “claim” to mean a right to payment even if it is disputed. The Code gets triggered the moment default of Rs.1 lakh or more (Section 4) occurs.

So far as limitation is concerned, for filing an application under Section 9, Article 137 of Part II of Third Division of Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable, which reads as follows: - 

PART II – OTHER APPLICATIONS 

Description of application

Period of limitation

Time for which period being to run

137. Any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this division.

Three years Where the right to apply accrues From the aforesaid provision of the Limitation Act, it is clear that the application is maintainable within three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. Since, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has come into effect since 1st December, 2016, Appellate Authority  hold that the application is not barred by limitation.

Therefore Appellate Authority set aside the impugned order dated 8th November, 2018 and remit the case to the Adjudicating Authority for passing appropriate order taking into consideration the records submitted by the Appellant in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Ors.”, after notice and hearing the Respondent.

Latest Judgement: NCLAT : Order of AA initiating CIRP under Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 set aside.

The promoter of the Corporate Debtor have preferred this appeal to set a side the impugned order of AA  impugned order dated 20th September, 2019 under Section 9 of the I&B code preferred by M/s Aanav Construction Co.

‘M/s Aanav Construction Co’. moved an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short the ‘I&B Code’), pursuant to which the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench by impugned order dated 20th September, 2019 initiated ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against ‘Shri Balaji Infradevelopers Private Limited’.

However the Promoters/appellant  have settled the claim of all the 11 Claimants before the constitution of COC  and preferred this appeal .

Therefore this appellate tribunal held that as the Promoters have settled the claim of all the 11 Claimants and the ‘Committee of Creditors’ has not been constituted, Appellate Tribunal in  exercise of powers conferred by Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 set-aside the impugned order dated 20th September, 2019 and dispose of the application under Section 9 of the I&B code preferred by M/s Aanav Construction Co. as withdrawn.