Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1502 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor defaulted in making repayment - existence of debt and dispute or not - Section 9 Of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as I & B Code) 2016 read with Rule 6 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The present application has been filed relating to invoices which have been raised regarding the service rendered at Orissa for which contract was separate. The corporate debtor has not filed any document to show that there was any pre -existing dispute regarding service rendered in Orissa. The corporate debtor has not filed a reply to the demand notice under the statutory period prescribed under Sec.8(2) of the I & B Code - Therefore, on the basis of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilex Innovations Private Limited [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] it is clear that corporate debtor has taken the defence of existence of dispute as a frivolous ground and in fact no dispute truly exists in between the parties relating to the service rendered by the operational creditor in Orissa for which contract was separate. On the basis of the documents filed by the petitioner,' it is clear that operational creditor has before filing the petition issued demand notice under Sec.8(1) of the I & B Code along with the copy of the invoices and it is also evident that after receiving the demand notice corporate debtor failed to issue any notice regarding existence of dispute or to record the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings relating to such dispute. The operational creditor has filed an affidavit in compliance with the provision of Sec.9(3)(b). The operational creditor has also filed a certified copy Of bank statement in compliance with the provision of Sec.9(3)(c) - From the documents filed by the petitioner, it is clear that no dispute was existing regarding the outstanding dues of the invoices raised for the service rendered by the operational creditor in the state of Orissa. It is also evident that the defence taken by the corporate debtor regarding the existence of a dispute is spurious and without any basis. In fact, the said dispute was existing relating to the service rendered by the operational creditor in UP for which there was separate agreement executed on different dates, and there was no interconnection between the contract made for Orissa and the contract awarded regarding the same service of UP. Application admitted - moratorium declared.
|