Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (5) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 397 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors or not - Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Bench notes that the Petitioner has to disclose the type and details of the goods for which a debt has arisen and which is being claimed by the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner had not furnished any details for the provision of goods, this bench while hearing the mater on 27.02.2020, gave one last chance to the Petitioner to submit on affidavit enclosing all the invoices and proof of delivery of the material to the Respondent corresponding to the amount of debt which has been claimed in the Petition. This Bench concludes that there is nothing on record which shows that any outstanding Operational Debt as a claim in respect of provision ‘supply of goods or services’ by way of invoices or any documents has been proved by the Petitioner. In fact, all the 37 invoices which have been put on record by the Petitioner as due from the respondent has been fully paid and are not outstanding. The additional claim amount raised by way of other charges is frivolous, unsubstantiated, not based on any documentary proof and not even any invoices to that effect has been raised from the Petitioner. Further any claim arising out of Journal entries are unilateral adjustment claims and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a claim arising out of supply of goods and services. The contention of the Respondent that it had issued those two cheques of about ₹ 4.16 crores and about ₹ 7.76 lakhs was only as security keeping in mind the business relationship between the parties, appears to be tenable. In any case, the dishonor of the cheques is a subject matter of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and only proves that the Respondent is not interested in paying any ‘security deposit’ to the Petitioner. The Bench is of the view that it does not relate to any outstanding amount due from the Respondent by way of any operational debt. Petition dismissed.
|