This appeal challenges an order dated July 31, 2023, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, New Delhi, Court No. III), which admitted an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 303,320,671/-, declared a moratorium, and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional.
The Appellant (Corporate Debtor) appointed the Respondent (Operational Creditor) as a sole distributor for JATL Branded products in Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through a distribution agreement dated February 1, 2018. This agreement, valid for 60 months, granted the Respondent the right to purchase and resell these batteries. Clause 2.3.3 of the agreement stipulated that JATL would send a quality person to inspect failures if they exceeded 5% and would replace all model-wise defective batteries above this threshold. Clause 7.2 further provided that in case of a breach, the aggrieved party could claim specific performance or terminate the agreement and seek damages. Complaints arose regarding the quality of batteries sold by the Appellant to
…Sign in to view the parties.
Appellant (Corporate Debtor) appointed…
A physical inspection was conducted due to…
This appeal challenges an order dated July 31, 2023, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, New Delhi, Court No. III), which admitted an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 303,320,671/-, declared a moratorium, and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional.
The Appellant (Corporate Debtor) appointed the Respondent (Operational Creditor) as a sole distributor for JATL Branded products in Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through a distribution agreement dated February 1, 2018. This agreement, valid for 60 months, granted the Respondent the right to purchase and resell these batteries. Clause 2.3.3 of the agreement stipulated that JATL would send a quality person to inspect failures if they exceeded 5% and would replace all model-wise defective batteries above this threshold. Clause 7.2 further provided that in case of a breach, the aggrieved party could claim specific performance or terminate the agreement and seek damages. Complaints arose regarding the quality of batteries sold by the Appellant to
…Appellant (Corporate Debtor) appointed…
A physical inspection was conducted due to…