National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Ergomaxx India Private Limited vs The Registrar Of National Company Law ... on 7 September, 2021 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No.133 of 2021 (Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 07.12.2020 in C.P.(IB) No. 116/BB/2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) In the matter of: M/s. Ergomaxx (India) Private Limited Address: No. 70/1, B2, Azhinjivakam Jannappan, ChaitramKoot Road, Karanodai, Sholavaram, Chennai 600067, Tamil Nadu, India. ...Appellant V 1. The Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Address: Raheja Towers, 12th Floor, M G Road, Bengaluru 560001, Karnataka, India ...Respondent No.1 2. National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Address: Raheja Towers, 12th Floor, M G Road, Bengaluru 560001, Karnataka, India. ...Respondent No.2 3. Krueger International Furniture Systems Private Limited Address: Plot No: 55, Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Jigani Industrial Area, Anekal Tq, Bangalore 562106, Karnataka, India. ...Respondent No.3 Present: For Appellant : Mr. K. Gaurav Kumar, (PCS) For 3rd Respondent : No appearance Comp App (AT)(CH)(INS) No.133 of 2021 1|Page JUDGMENT (VIRTUAL MODE) M. Venugopal (J) INTRODUCTION: The 'Appellant' has filed the present 'Appeal' being dissatisfied with the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru) in CP/IB/116/BB/2020 (Filed by the 'Appellant'/'Petitioner'/'Operational Creditor' under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016). Notice was ordered by this 'Tribunal' to the 3rd Respondent on 25.06.2021 and according to the 'Appellant' the email sent to the 3rd Respondent bounced back due to 'Recipient email address is possibly incorrect'. Further, on behalf of the 'Appellant' it is stated before this' Tribunal' that the address of the 3rd Respondent Company from the Master Data shows its registered address at Bengaluru which is the same one i.e. mentioned in the 'Memo of Parties' of the 'instant Appeal'. 1. Earlier, the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru) while passing the 'Impugned Order' in CP(IB) No.116/BB/2020 on 07.12.2020 at paragraph 12 to 16 had observed the following: 12"The Appellant's contention that the Respondent could have procured the goods from other sources and that the Applicant's responsibility ends once the supply is done cannot be adjudicated upon by this Tribunal as proceedings under Section 9 of the Code, 2016 are summary proceedings and do not envisage detailed investigation, enquiry or forensic audit. The contentions raised pointing out to a dispute regarding the quality of the goods being good at the time of delivery, the Respondents own shoddy work on the additional work, or supplies received from other suppliers, etc. only makes it clear that these issues have to be dealt with by any other court or tribunal where evidence can be adduced in support of such contentions, but not under these summary proceedings under the I&B Code, 2016. Comp App (AT)(CH)(INS) No.133 of 2021 2|Page 13. Further, proceedings under the Code are independent proceedings and proceedings in another forum cannot solely be made a basis for a decision by this Tribunal unless a prima facie case is made out by the Applicant under the provisions of Section 9 of the Code, 2016. On a plain reading of the order dated 18.02.2019 of the MSMEC, it is clear that the Respondent has disputed the quality of goods supplied even before the Council and the same is a matter of record. The nature and purpose of proceedings before the MSME Council are completely different and cannot alone be a basis of this Tribunal's decision under IBC proceedings. This Tribunal is not a dispute resolution mechanism, and cannot be used as a recovery forum for decrees of MSMEC. Under the I&B Code, 2016, this Tribunal offers a mechanism to reorganise and resolve the insolvency the Corporate entities etc. in a time bound manner while maximising the value of assets to the benefit of all stakeholders. Unless the Petitioner makes out a case for Insolvency, merely because an order has been passed by the MSMEC cannot have a bearing on these proceedings. As regards the case law cited by the Petitioner to sate that