Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (1) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1289 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHANDIGARH BENCHMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - whether the corporate debtor is raising a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence, keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] that the Adjudicating Authority (AA) does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed? - HELD THAT:- A dispute truly exists in fact since the contention of the corporate debtor is that it terminated the LOI by letter of termination dated 07.10.2016 on the ground of undue delay in completion of the work and on the other hand, the plea of the operational creditor is that the termination of the LOI was made by it vide email dated 07.10.2016 on the ground of non-payment of dues. The plea on behalf of the corporate debtor is that Annexure P-6 of the petition being memorandum of payment showing due amount from the corporate debtor of ₹ 4,31,73,446/- is an unsigned/unverified document and that a copy of RA 04 (combine) for an amount of ₹ 4,31,73,446/- was never submitted to it. On the other hand, the claim of the operational creditor is that the letter of termination dated 07.10.2016 was not received by it. The learned authorized representative for the operational creditor has referred to the deduction of income tax of 2% made by the corporate debtor on work done of ₹ 8,59,81,227/- for the Financial Years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 (Annexure CA/4 of CA No. 507/2018). However, simultaneously, the operational creditor has stated that it had executed work amounting to ₹ 9,47,21,459/- excluding taxes and cost of retained tools, plant and machinery. The claim of executed work being more, the details of work done as per the Form 26AS do not affect the finding that a dispute truly exists in fact. It is concluded that the claim of dispute raised by the corporate debtor is a plausible contention requiring further investigation and is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence - Application rejected.
|