Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 733 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Petition under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is filed on 07.03.2013 for the default amount of INR18,48,234.54Ps, which was due on account of non-payment for security services provided by the Petitioner to the Respondent as per the work order dtd 14.01.2013 - The above work order dtd 14.01.2013 duly signed by the Petitioner and the Respondent, consists of terms and conditions, wherein at point no. 11, it is stated that - "In case of any theft from our factory due to security lapses or inefficiency, the same will be recovered from NISA's A/c." - The work order of 14.01.2013 is effective from 20.01.2013 to 19.01.2014, but it has not been extended. Pre-existing disputes is established when the Respondent in its reply has raised the contentions that a statutory notice was sent on 24.08.2016 demanding an amount of INR75.00 Lakhs by the Respondent to the Petitioner and the same was also replied by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent had filed CP(L) 889 of 2016 under Section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, before the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay - The dispute regarding the breach of terms and conditions of the work order was raised by the Corporate Debtor long back prior to the issue of demand notice. Hence this is a case of preexisting dispute between the Corporate Debtor and the Petitioner. The disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor falls within the ambit of Section 5(6) of the Code which provides as below: ""dispute" includes a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to- (a) the existence of the amount of debt; (b) the quality of goods or service; or (c) the breach of a representation or warranty;" There is a pre-existing dispute, in relation to the unpaid operational debt, between the parties which is supported by the evidence placed on record. This dispute existed prior to the serving of demand notice under section 8 and the Operational Creditor had such notice of existence of such dispute - application rejected.
|