9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the ground that Corporate Debtor defaulted in making payment of Rs. 34,14,589 against the invoice the petitioner raised on 02.05.2016 despite Section 8 Notice served upon the corporate debtor on 19.03.2018. 2. The petitioner is engaged in providing Ground Handling Services (GHS). It entered into two Letters Of Intent (LOI) with the corporate debtor and Go Airlines (India) Limited (in short "Go Airlines") to provide Ramp Equipment Services (RES) and Ground Handling Services at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. To provide Ramp Equipment Services to Go Airlines (India) Limited, the corporate debtor entered into LOI with the petitioner on 26.09.2015, thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 14.01.2016, it was further informed to the petitioner that since an LoI previously executed between Go Airlines and LION Manpower (the previous service provider) was still subsisting as on that date, the operational creditor must start its operations from 01.04.2016, during which time, the LOI with the previous service provider would be terminated by the Go Airlines. 6. As things stood thus, the corporate debtor informed the petitioner on 25.03.2016 stating that since the LOI between LION Manpower and Go Airlines could not be terminated because the termination notice was wrongly sent by the corporate debtor, the corporate debtor sent another mail to the petitioner on 30.03.2016 informing that the LOI with the LION Manpower was still s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 8. Though this corporate debtor paid off the claim amount through RTGS in between 22.06.2016 to 26.07.2016, the corporate debtor subsequently started disputing the payment of the claim amount for the month of April 2016 under the invoice dated 02.05.2016 on the ground that the petitioner did not deploy its manpower for the month of April, 2016, by saying so, the corporate debtor adjusted the payment made for April month against subsequent claims raised for the following months. To which, the petitioner clarified that the payment made for the month of April, 2016 was towards the manpower the petitioner made ready for deployment, therefore, the corporate debtor could not say that since the manpower was not physically deployed, the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereby whatever the petitioner stated in his company petition with regard to LOI-1 is not relevant to this case, for this reason, those aspects have not been specifically denied by the corporate debtor because this claim is no way connected to LOI-1. 11. To say that the corporate debtor never agreed nor given any impression to the petitioner that the corporate debtor would make payment for the month of April, 2016, the corporate debtor referred email dated 30th March, 2016 stating that the erstwhile service provider entry passes are already been renewed with effect from 1st April, 2016, therefore the existing vendor would continue to provide services with effect from 1st April, 2016 till the expiry of the notice period, in view of this e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... release Rs. 36 lacs approx and will not release the payment for which Manpower was not provided but bills were raised I think for the month of April. Details of the cheque along with courier details and exact amount will be shared before 12 noon tomorrow. Many thanks for your support during our tenure of the project." 13. When the cheque dated 5th October, 2016 for Rs. 34,35,975.30 sent by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner was returned unpaid with a remark "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS", the Petitioner on 7th October, 2016 reminded the Corporate Debtor to ensure that the RTGS of the above cheque amount is effected positively by Monday. In this e-mail, the Petitioner did not dispute the e-mail dated 29.09.2016 sent by the Corporate Debtor making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r admitted anywhere saying that the petitioner was asked to provide service for the month of April, 2016 or admitted that the corporate debtor is liable to pay to the petitioner for the month of April, 2016 and as to whether this corporate debtor raised dispute in respect to the invoice for the month of April, 2016 before receipt of Section 8 notice from the operational creditor. 18. As to first point is concerned, it is a point to be decided by a trial court as to whether the corporate debtor asking the petitioner to remain on standby during the period of April 2016 to deploy staff only in the case existing service provider created any disruption during the notice period, amounts to obligation upon the corporate debtor to pay the creditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
