The NCLAT held that if maintenance of premises is the liability of the Operational Creditor in which there are certain lapses, these issues cannot be a ground to reject the Section 9 Application.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson, Dr. Alok Srivastava and Barun Mitra, Technical Members were hearing an Appeal on Thursday, against the admission of the Application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, held that if the maintenance of the premises was the liability of the Operational Creditor in which there were certain lapses, these issues cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the rental as was agreed between the parties.
The Appellate Authority noted that the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order noticed all the objections raised by the Corporate Debtor and has elaborately considered and returned the finding that operational debt was due and the submission which was pressed before the Adjudicating Authority that lease rental is not operational debt has been dealt with and relying on the larger Bench judgment of the Appellate Tribunal in Jaipur Trade Expocentre Private Limited v. Metro Jet Airways Training Private Limited, REED 2022 NCLAT Del 07503, the argument was rejected.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that there was no proper computation of rent in the Application under Section 9. The Appellate Authority had seen Part-IV of the Application which gives the details of the operational debt and is also supported by a computation chart as Annexure A-2B. The Appellate Tribunal was not convinced with the submission of the Appellant that the correct computation of the amount outstanding has not been given.
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the letter on which reliance has been placed by the Appellant being letter dated 21.02.2019 did not amount to any dispute with regard to the entitlement of lease rental and on that basis, it cannot be contended that debt was disputed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that the maintenance of the premises was the liability of the Operational Creditor in which there were certain lapses. The Appellate Authority noted these issues cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the rental as was agreed between the parties.