Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (11) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1944 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - service of notice - HELD THAT:- Accrual of interest during a short period of a month or two will exceed 39 lacs. The claim of interest cannot therefore accrue solely from the three invoices, in question, as claimed in the application (Form-5). That apart there is no document to show that the six debit notes unilaterally sent by the applicant towards interest were acknowledged by the respondent. Respondent has disputed the claim inter alia with the contention that no ledger account was filed along with original application nor there was any material to demonstrate the previous transactions nor were there any agreement and/or understanding in support of payment of interest. In this scenario the amount of interest, as specifically claimed in the application (Form-5), is not free from dispute. It is also pertinent to mention here that respondent company has filed relevant ledger accounts revealing previous transactions between the parties, which were not disclosed by the applicant at the first instance. It is seen from the reply and rejoinder that there had been business transactions between the parties comprised of reciprocal demands on account of sales and purchases made inter-se, since the year 2010. Litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings as wheels of justice can move only on true facts. However the applicant has initiated the application without full disclosure of facts at the first instance - In view of the aforementioned particulars the claim of reciprocal transactions on account of sales and purchases made inter-se, between the parties cannot be overlooked. Accordingly, the dispute raised by the Respondent on the claim of principle amount and interest cannot be termed as sham and illusory. Admittedly there has been no admission of the claimed operational debt by the respondent. On the contrary there has been a counter-claim by the respondent. It is further seen that there has been reciprocal transactions between the parties long since the year 2010 and dispute certainly exists in the facts of the case much prior to the issuance of notice under Section 8 of the Code. The claim of dispute suggests the need of elaborate investigation. It is reiterated that existence of dispute in the present case cannot be ruled out. The respondent has raised dispute with sufficient particulars. Hence, the amount of claim raised by the applicant clearly falls within the ambit of disputed claim. Application dismissed.
|