TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015 enclosed, which is not subject matter. Thereby, we hold that the Appellant has made out a case for admission of application under Section 9. Issuance of demand notice by advocate - HELD THAT:- The case being covered by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Macquarie Bank Ltd. v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. [ 2017 (12) TMI 850 - SUPREME COURT ] cannot be a ground to reject the application. Appeal allowed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 314 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2018 - JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, CHAIRPERSON AND Bansi Lal Bhat, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Adv. For the Respondent : Anuj Singh, Mangaljit Mukherjee and Debarpita Basu Mukherjee, Advs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection (5) of Section 9 of I B code and therefore this application is liable to be rejected. 3. The Adjudicating Authority framed its opinion on the basis of submission, which reads as follows:- '10. A careful screening of the above referred notices issued by the respondent produced along with the reply affidavit proves undoubtedly that respondent challenged the quality of the waste paper supplied to the respondent long before the issuance of demand notice. All the notices seen received by the proprietor Shri M. Shaw. It is good to quote the challenge raised by the respondent in one among the notices issued by the respondent to the applicant on 15.04.2013, it read as follows:- We regret to inform you that de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 15th April, 2013 cannot be relied upon to reject an application under Section 9. 5. The Respondent (Corporate Debtor) has taken plea, as was taken before the Adjudicating Authority that a quality report of raw material of 2015 suggested substandard quality of goods. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants referred to invoices raised after 15th April, 2013, the date when earlier letter of dispute was raised with regard to earlier supply and submitted that there is no dispute with regard to invoices raised between 16th April, 2013 to 25th November, 2015 (at pages 99 to 205) which are not covered by letter dated 15th April, 2013. It is further submitted that there is no quality report available on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no dispute in existence with regard to goods supplied between 16th April, 2013 to 8th May, 2014 and the majority of goods supplied during the year 2015, except for one of which report dated 13th August, 2015 enclosed, which is not subject matter. Thereby, we hold that the Appellant has made out a case for admission of application under Section 9. 11. Insofar as issuance of demand notice by advocate is concerned, the case being covered by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Macquarie Bank Ltd.' v. 'Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. [2018] 145 SCL 236 cannot be a ground to reject the application. 12. The Adjudicating Authority having failed to consider the aforesaid facts, we set aside the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
