# In the matter of Surendra Trading Company Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd (now known as Geo Jute Ltd) CA )AT) No. 189-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2018-05-07. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00303. Surendra Trading Company filed an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 7 May 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00303
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/surendra-trading-company-vs-juggilal-kamlapat-jute-mills-company-ltd-69b487db

## Summary

### Background

Surendra Trading Company filed an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) which rejected their application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant claimed to be an Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application because the Appellant failed to provide evidence of debt or default. The Appellant's claim was previously rejected by the Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 09 of 2017, an appeal preferred by the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant then moved to the Supreme Court, which allowed them to rectify the defects. However, even after this opportunity, the Appellant failed to enclose any document of debt.

## Facts

Surendra Trading Company filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming to be an Operational Creditor of Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) rejected the application due to the absence of evidence of debt or default. The Appellant had previously filed an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, after which the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court, who allowed the Appellant to remove the defects. The Appellant's claim was based on outstanding dues prior to 2004. The Appellant enclosed margin bills as evidence of debt, but the Adjudicating Authority had already noticed these bills and found them insufficient. The margin bills lacked the signature of

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appellant provided sufficient evidence of debt or default to maintain an application …

**Ratio:** An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, requires the

…

**Reasoning:** The court found that the Appellant failed to provide any evidence of debt, even after

…

**Interpretation:** Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, requires an operational

…

**Application:** In this case, the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of debt or

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Surendra Trading…
- **Respondents:** Juggilal Kamlapat…; M/s. Juggilal…

## Timeline

- **2017-01-01 — Company Appeal (AT)…**: An appeal preferred by the Corporate Debtor, in which the Appellant's claim was not…
- **N/A — Appeal to Supr…**: The Appellant moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, who allowed the Appellant to remove…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

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/surendra-trading-company-vs-juggilal-kamlapat-jute-mills-company-ltd-69b487db