Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (3) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 195 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Outstanding debt - HELD THAT:- The communication dated 18.11.2015 placed of the typed set filed with the Rejoinder is concerned, it has neither been sent on the letterhead of the Corporate Debtor nor signed by its Managing Director. The documents dated 04.03.2014 and 26.04.2014 appear to be genuine. However, the document dated 18.11.2015 is not having any credentials for being admitted as genuine because neither it has been sent on the letterhead of the Corporate Debtor nor was signed by its Managing Director. In the circumstances, the last date of balance confirmation is being treated as 26.04.2014 and the Application under Section 9 has been filed on 21.02.2018 which is being filed after the expiry of the period of limitation and the same is barred by the law of limitation. Therefore, this issue is decided against the Operational Creditor and in favour of the Corporate Debtor. In relation to the 2nd issue, the Corporate Debtor has clearly brought out the factual details in its Reply Statement and has proved that the amounts claimed by the Operational Creditor, on the basis of the Invoices the detail of which is placed at page 16 of the typed set filed with the Application, have been paid through RTGs except Invoice No. 456, the amount of which was paid in cash. The Corporate Debtor has also placed the original documents pertaining to the payments made against the Invoices, the detail of which is given under Para 13 at Table 'A' of the Reply Statement. Cash Payment Advices with regard to which this Authority has suggested the Operational Creditor that the original documents need to be sent to the Handwriting Expert as the signatures of the authorized signatory of the Operational Creditor are being disputed by the Operational Creditor. But, the same has been refused and the Handwriting Expert's opinion placed on record is not inspiring the confidence of this Authority, as the opinion has been formed on the basis of the scanned copies, photo state etc. Therefore, the 2nd issue is also decided against the Operational Creditor and in favour of the Corporate Debtor. Application filed under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 by the Operational Creditor is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed.
|