9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its registered Office at Indian Mercantile Mansion (Extn.), Madam Cama Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 400039 to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Corporate Debtor on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in making payment of Rs. 32,04,812/- against supply of various books being published by the Operational Creditor. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an agreement dated 10th day of March, 2012 was entered into between International Book House Pvt. Ltd. and Taxmann Group of Companies comprising of Taxmann Publications Pvt. Ltd. and Taxmann Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. whereby the Corporate Debtor i.e. International Book House Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as distributor of the Petitioner i.e Taxmann Publicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) the supply of goods not being in confirmation to the order placed by the authorised persons, (b) the Corporate Debtor is not liable to pay for order placed by individuals other than authorised persons. 4. Since the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment, the Petitioner has filed this Petition before this Tribunal. The Petitioner has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (Civil Appeal No. 9405/2017) to state that the disputes belatedly raised in reply to the demand notice fall under the ambit of spurious defence and are not pre-existing in nature. 5. The Petitioner has placed on record Affidavit dated 20th November, 2018 u/s 9(3)(b) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n authorised persons. It is pertinent to note that the Corporate Debtor raised theses disputes after the receipt of the demand notice and no correspondence prior in time to the demand notice about the disputes have been brought on record. The defence taken by the Corporate Debtor is not covered in pre-existing dispute in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited (supra). The application made by the Petitioner clearly shows that the operational debt has not been paid even after the service of demand notice. The disputes raised belatedly are not tenable in law. In compliance of Section 9(3)(b) and Section 9(3)(c), Bank statements and affidavit of no dispute has also been ann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g moratorium period. III. That the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of IBC shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. IV. That the order of moratorium shall have effect from 21.12.2018 till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 of IBC or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under section 33 of IBC, as the case may be. V. That the public announcement of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be made immediately as specified under section 13 of IBC. VI. That this Bench hereby appoints Bhavi Shreyans S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
