Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1610 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - whether there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties before issuance of a demand notice? - Held that:- In the case on hand, first of all no notice of dispute has been issued by the respondent. Even if no notice of dispute is issued this Adjudicating Authority has to find out whether there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties before issuance of a demand notice. The suit filed by the respondent against M/s. Sumitomo Electronic Industries Ltd. and the petitioner questioning the termination of the Distributionship Agreement dated 01.04.2016 that exists between the petitioner and the respondent without assigning any reasons, by issuing email dated 07.04.2017 by the Sumitomo Electronic Industries Limited and for restraining the Sumitomo Electronic Industries Limited and respondent herein from giving distribution of splicing machines to M/s. Invas Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Candid Optronix Pvt. Ltd. Senior Civil Judge granted temporary injunction directing M/s. Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd. and the respondent herein to supply the spare parts of the splicing machines which were already supplied on the same terms and conditions and on condition of paying the costs of the spare parts, accessories etc. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and the counter in the above said applications clinchingly show that the dispute that is pending in the City Civil Court or in the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Hyderabad has nothing to do with the operational debt claimed in this petition. The operational debt claimed in this petition is pertaining to the period upto 30.03.2017 and during the subsistence of the Distributionship Agreement. The dispute that is pending in the Civil Court pertain to the termination of the Distributionship Agreement dated 01.04.2016 and the consequential reliefs. It is not even the case of the respondent that on account of the termination of the Distributionship Agreement he has not paid the operational debt. Therefore, the dispute in Civil Court do not relate to the operational debt that is claimed in this petition. The dispute that is pending has nothing to do with the operational debt claimed in this petition. Therefore, there does not exist dispute relating to operational debt claimed in this petition prior to the issuance of demand notice. The petition is complete in all respects. Petition deserves to be admitted and it is accordingly admitted.
|