SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 607

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
RUDRAKSH DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED VS
C.P. (IB) - 34/2022



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Kiran Sharma

SL. No. 4

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

COURT HALL NO: II

Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode

CORAM: SHRI. RAJEEV BHARDWAJ – HON’BLE MEMBER (J)

CORAM: SHRI. SANJAY PURI - HON’BLE MEMBER (T)

ATTENDANCE-CUM-ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,

HYDERABAD BENCH, HELD ON 25.02.2025 at 10:30 AM

TRANSFER PETITION NO.

COMPANY PETITION/APPLICATION NO. CP (IB) No.34/9/HDB/2022 NAME OF THE COMPANY Sanvisri Polysacks Pvt Ltd

NAME OF THE PETITIONER(S) MH Enterprises

NAME OF THE RESPONDENT(S) Sanvisri Polysacks Pvt Ltd

UNDER SECTION 9 of IBC

ORDER

Orders pronounced, recorded vide separate sheets. In the result, the CP(IB) No.

34/9/HDB/2022 is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)

Vamsi

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL (Under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 read with Rule 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudication Authority Rules, 2016)

In the matter of M/s SANVISRI POLYSACKS PRIVATE LIMITED CP (IB) No.34/09/HDB/2022 BETWEEN:

M/s. M. H. Enterprises Repd. By its Partner, Mr. Harish Maheshwari Plot No. B-57, APlE, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500 037 …Petitioner/Operational Creditor AND M/s. Sanvisri Polysacks Private Limited Repd. By its Director Mr. Gorantla Lakshmipathi Plot No. 34 & 35, Apparel Park, Gundlapochampally (v), Medchal (M), Medchal MalkajgiriDist -500043 …. Respondent/Corporate Debtor Date of Order : 25.02.2025 CORAM Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Hon’ble Member (Judicial)

Sri Sanjay Puri, Hon’ble Member (Technical)

COUNSELS PRESENT For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Ravi Kumar For the Respondent : Mr. M. Maharshi Viswaraj Per: Sanjay Puri, Member (Technical)

O R D E R

The Application

1. This petition has been filed by M/s. M H Enterprises, the (Operational Creditor/OC), against M/s Sanvisri Polysacks Private Limited, the (Corporate Debtor/CD), seeking initiation of CIRP1 under Section 9 of IBC2 for the nonpayment of Rs 1,34,19,325 (Rupees One Crore Thirty Fourt Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-Five Only) as operational dues payable to the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner is a registered partnership firm involved in construction, development, leasing, plotting, sub-letting, and real estate transactions. The Respondent Corporate Debtor is a private limited company incorporated in Hyderabad under the Companies Act, engaged in the manufacturing of plastic products.

3. The Petitioner is the owner of two Plots3 which were leased to the Corporate Debtor through a registered Lease Agreement4 dated 18th October 2019. As per the Lease Agreement, the Corporate Debtor had agreed to pay Rs 3,50,000. per month as rent, plus GST.

4. It was also agreed by the Corporate Debtor that, in case of delay, a financial charge of Rs 1,000 per day would apply. Additionally, the GST shall be paid by the lessee every month to the lessor, along with the monthly rent. The term of the lease was for a period of 6 years, from October 2019 to July 2025. The Corporate Debtor then established plant and machinery at the premises and commenced business operations.

1 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

2 Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016

3 Plot Nos. 34 and 35, measuring 4,066 sq. yards, together with industrial premises having a built-up area

of 29,500 sq. ft, covered under Sy. No. 509/1/2 at Apparel Park, Gundlapochempally Village, Telangana

4 Registered lease Agreement no:15172/2019 dated 18.10.2019 registered with the Sub-Registrar in

Medchal

5. It is submitted that, after signing the Lease Agreement, the Corporate Debtor has been irregular in paying rent, making partial payments only until October 2020, and has failed to pay the rent thereafter. It is further claimed that whenever the Petitioner demanded overdue rent, the Corporate Debtor delayed the issue in various ways. When asked to vacate the premises and settle the outstanding rent, the Corporate Debtor allegedly attempted to remove plant and machinery without payment, causing significant loss to the Petitioner. Consequently, the Petitioner resisted this action

6. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top