# In the matter of Paramjeet Singh Vs. Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd. CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 150-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-11-20. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00054. This is an appeal filed by Paramjeet Singh, Director of M/s. International Coil Limited,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 20 Nov 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00054
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/paramjeet-singh-vs-maxim-tubes-company-pvt-ltd-ca-dc5a510f

## Summary

### Background

This is an appeal filed by Paramjeet Singh, Director of M/s. International Coil Limited, against an order dated August 16, 2017, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, New Delhi. The order admitted an application preferred by the respondent (Financial Creditor) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, initiated moratorium, and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The appellant claims the existence of a dispute, supported by a letter, which the respondent alleges is forged.

## Facts

Paramjeet Singh, Director of M/s. International Coil Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) which admitted an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd. The NCLT order also initiated a moratorium and appointed an IRP. The appellant claimed the existence of a dispute, presenting a letter as evidence. The respondent alleged that the letter was forged. The Corporate Debtor, International Coil Limited, did not dispute the operational creditor's notice under Section 8 of the IBC within the stipulated ten-day period. The application under Section 9 was filed in Form 5, stating that no objection was filed by the Corporate Debtor under Section 8(2).

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the application under Section 9 of the …

**Ratio:** The court will not interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order if the Corporate

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Corporate Debtor did not dispute the claim or submit any

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 8 of the IBC is that the Corporate Debtor must

…

**Application:** In this case, the Corporate Debtor failed to dispute the claim within the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** PARAMJEET…
- **Respondents:** International…; MAXIM TUBES…
- **Advocates:** Pankaj K…; Gargi R.…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **2017-08-16 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) passed an order admitting the…
- **2017-11-20 — Appeal F…**: Paramjeet Singh, Director of M/s. International Coil Limited, filed an appeal against the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 8 — Insolvency resolution by operational creditor](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-8)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/paramjeet-singh-vs-maxim-tubes-company-pvt-ltd-ca-dc5a510f