Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1281 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - Pre-Existing Dispute between the parties prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice under Section 8 of the Code, or not - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the Ledger Account for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 shows that the Debit Notes were issued by the Respondent Company to the Appellant Company contemporaneously. This Bench has perused the Debit Notes dated 23.01.2017, 31.12.2015 and 26.11.2015, wherein it is clearly specified that the debit note is being raised on account of ‘bad and rejected material’ dispatched by the Appellant Company. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT], has observed A dispute does truly exist in fact between the parties, which may or may not ultimately succeed, and the Appellate Tribunal was wholly incorrect in characterizing the defense as vague, got-up and motivated to evade liability. Merely because there were settlement talks between the parties it cannot be construed that the debt is ‘due and payable’ as envisaged under the Code, specifically keeping in view the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited - In their Reply to the Section 8 Notice, the Respondent Company has clearly raised a dispute and the material on record evidences that the Debit Notes were raised on account of rejection of poor quality material and therefore we are of the considered view that there is 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. This Tribunal is satisfied that the ‘dispute’ truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory - there are no substantial grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned Order of the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal dismissed.
|