9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, the Operational Creditor transported the goods as agreed, thereby executed the job to the satisfaction of the Corporate Debtor without any complaint or demur whatsoever from the Corporate Debtor within the above stipulated period. After transportation of the goods, the Operational Creditor generated invoices for an amount of Rs. 53,66,660/- approximately after deducting short falls and tax deducted at source against the three invoices raised by the Applicant. 4. Since the Corporate Debtor failed to pay the amount due, the Operational Creditor issued a letter dated 27-03-2016 demanding the payments. In response to the demand, the Corporate Debtor has paid the outstanding amount of Rs. 21,92,374/- only against one bill dated 30-10-2015 and for the remaining two invoices dated 27-07-2015 and 27-08-2015, the amount is due and payable. The outstanding amount due as per the above two bills comes to Rs. 31,20,806/- approximately after deducting short falls and TDS. Despite demands, the Corporate Debtor has not paid the above said outstanding due. However, has deposited TDS amounts of Rs. 15,407/- and Rs. 16150/- respectively against the aforesaid two pending invoices. Despite demand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reply affidavit contending in brief is the following: The Applicant who filed the Application is incompetent to sue for and on behalf of the Applicant company. The Operational Creditor is not a person within the meaning of Section 2(23) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy code, 2016. The Corporate Debtor did not commit any default within the meaning of Section 2(12) read with Section 6 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Corporate Debtor raised a dispute within the meaning of Section 5(6) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in respect of quality of material transported and also the quality of service provided by the Operational Creditor. The said dispute was communicated to the operational Creditor verbally on 07-08-2015 and on 08-09-2015 and also communicated vide letters dated 08-08-2015 and 10-09-2015 which were delivered by hand. 8. The copy of Ledger Account Annexure "H" annexed to the Application itself is evident that Bill No. 003 dated 28-09-2015 and Bill No. 004 dated 31-10-2015 are not outstanding and payments released by the corporate Debtor were adjusted by the Operational Creditor as against the aforesaid subsequent bills keeping the bills in question p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and notice Annexure "J" on 07-01-2018. 14. The demand notice evidently delivered on the Corporate Debtor as per the track consignment produced along with the supplementary affidavit on 10-01-2018. 15. It is contented by the Corporate Debtor in its reply affidavit that demand notice allegedly issued by the Operational Creditor was not delivered to the corporate debtor. The said contention is found not true. The track consignment produced on the side of the Operational Creditor itself disproves the said contention. So the applicant proved delivery of the demand notice issued in the case in hand. 16. One another contention raised on the side of the Corporate Debtor in the reply affidavit is that there exists a dispute in regard to quality and quantity of coal transported by the operational Creditor. In para 5 of the reply affidavit, there is an averment to the effect that notice of dispute has been issued verbally on 07-08-2015 and on 08-09-2015 and vide letter issued on 08-08-2015 and on 10-09-2015. To strengthen the said contention raised in the reply affidavit there is no supporting proof. Moreover, the Corporate Debtor did not turn up to substantiate the said contention raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 9(3)(c) Code, the Operational Creditor has produced the copy of statement of accounts. The Operational Creditor succeeds in proving that demand notice has been issued to the Corporate Debtor along with the copy of invoices and the demand notice has been delivered on the Corporate Debtor. Section 9(5)(e) of the Code not meted out because the operational Creditor has not proposed the name of the Insolvency Professional. 23. In view of the above said discussions, the application is liable to be admitted upon the flowing orders: ORDERS (i) The application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Sri Balaji Metallics Private Limited, is hereby admitted. (ii) I hereby declare a moratorium and public announcement in accordance with Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC, 2016. (iii) Moratorium is declared for the purposes referred to in Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The IRP shall cause a public announcement of the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and call for the submission of claims under Section 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
