Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (4) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 593 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate insolvency process - Corporate Debtor defaulted paying the dues outstanding against the invoices raised by the Applicant - Corporate Debtor raised a dispute over the warranty from as back as 2015 by sending notices and emails, therefore the Corporate Debtor submits that this Petition is liable to be dismissed - pre-existing dispute - HELD THAT:- There is a clear material inferring that the dispute is in existence in between the parties since 2015. Looking at the corporate debtor from time to time notifying the applicant not providing manufacturer warranty since 02.03.2015, that is far before the applicant sending statutory notice u/s. 434 of the Companies Act 1956, we believe that a single sentence of the Corporate Debtor e-mail dated 18.09.2014 confirming that as per the applicant combined statement, the total amount comes to ₹ 742.31 lacs, but as per the records of the corporate debtor outstanding amount as on date was of ₹ 699.42 (in the email dated 18.09.2014 at 5.49 p.m. from the corporate debtor side not disclosing as to whether it is in lakhs or not, therefore not suffixed with lacs, may be, it is lakhs only) will not have any bearing on the proof showing from 2015 onwards the corporate debtor insisting upon manufacturer warranty and this dispute being covered under the definition of dispute There being a money recovery suit pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on the above subject matter before filing this company petition, which is also covered under the definition of dispute, this Bench without going into other merits of the case, this CP is hereby dismissed on the ground that dispute is in existence as on the date this Applicant filed winding up petition before Honourable High Court and before section 8 notice given by the Corporate debtor. Company Petition dismissed as misconceived.
|