TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that is far before the applicant sending statutory notice u/s. 434 of the Companies Act 1956, we believe that a single sentence of the Corporate Debtor e-mail dated 18.09.2014 confirming that as per the applicant combined statement, the total amount comes to ₹ 742.31 lacs, but as per the records of the corporate debtor outstanding amount as on date was of ₹ 699.42 (in the email dated 18.09.2014 at 5.49 p.m. from the corporate debtor side not disclosing as to whether it is in lakhs or not, therefore not suffixed with lacs, may be, it is lakhs only) will not have any bearing on the proof showing from 2015 onwards the corporate debtor insisting upon manufacturer warranty and this dispute being covered under the definition of disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the Corporate Debtor towards the cables supplied by it, as and when defaults occurred, the Applicant wrote to the Corporate Debtor of their failure in making payments, in response to the same, the Corporate Debtor through an email dated 24.09.2014 acknowledged its liability assuring that it would clear the dues, thereafter when the Applicant had issued Statutory Notice dated 15.09.2016 u/s. 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Corporate Debtor replied on 17.10.2016 for the first time disputing the liability by making vague allegations despite admitting the liability on 24.09.2014. Since payment did not come from the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant had filed winding up Petition (CP SR4687/2016) against the Corporate Debtor under the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporate Debtor, the Corporate Debtor replied to Section 8 Notice disputing the debt claim raised by the debtor. 5. The Applicant submits that as on 30.11.2017, the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay ₹ 7,60,11,111.65, interest on the late payment @ 18% amounting to ₹ 4,33,26,333.64 and a sum of ₹ 44,63,450.44 towards Commercial Tax total aggregating to ₹ 12,38,00,895.74. 6. In support of this claim, the Applicant has filed purchase orders dated 10.08.2012, 12.09.2012 (four purchase orders); the invoices from 07.11.2012 to 17.01.2014; confirmation of balance through e-mail correspondence dated 24.09.2014; Statutory notice u/s. 434 of the Companies Act 1956 dated 15.09.2016; Reply given by the Corporate Debtor o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls of the corporate debtor, the applicant should provide manufacturer's warranty otherwise the goods supplied by the applicant will be rejected. 9. Subsequently, on 16.03.2015, the Corporate Debtor again called upon the Applicant to provide Manufacturer's Warranty within 7 days, failing which, the corporate debtor stated, the cables supplied would be treated as rejected and the applicant should pick them up from their stores in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Rajasthan with a caveat that any additional cost incurred in replacing the cables would come to the account of the applicant. 10. The Corporate Debtor counsel further stated that while case hearing was in progress, this applicant through additional documents produced purpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Delhi even before filing this Company Petition on the ground of saving the claim from lapse of limitation period, the Corporate Debtor counsel submits that this Petition is liable to be dismissed basing on the ground that the dispute is in existence in between the parties as stated under Sec 5 (2), Sec 8 and Sec 9 of the Code and the ratio decided in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) 1 SCC 353. 15. On hearing the submissions of either side, this Bench instead of going into as to whether this debt is hit by limitation or not, for there is a clear material inferring that the dispute is in existence in between the parties since 2015. Looking at the corporate debtor from time to time notifying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
