9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.O. Modinagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.- 201204 and is engaged in manufacturing of distillery products. The application is signed by Sh. Vijay Pal Singh authorized representative and he has also filed affidavit verifying the petition and has been authorized vide Board Resolution dated 01.03.2017 to initiate Corporate Insolvency process under IBC, 2016. 3. The Corporate Debtor is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 on 06.08.1998 bearing CIN U15511DL1998PTC095431 as per master data. The Authorized Share Capital of the Corporate Debtor is Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and Paid Up Share Capital is Rs. 1,15,50,000/- as per Master Data of the company and is having its registered office at 227, Dharam Kunj Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi-110085. 4. The Applicant has stated that during the course of business, the applicant had sold distillery products to the corporate debtor and in pursuance thereto various invoices were raised by the applicant total amounting to Rs. 55,61,572.48/- from 19.05.2016 to 08.03.2017 and advanced discounts under the head of credit note was granted to corporate debtor amounting to Rs. 6,68,125.00/-, and has received an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on the deposition of the cheques and requested to hold the cheques until the management gives the confirmation. However, the applicant vide email dated 05.06.2018 informed the respondent that it has sent the undated cheques to its accounts department and requested to see that the cheques were not dishonoured. It is submitted that the amounts were never confirmed by the respondent and consequently the sum due and payable was never crystallized. It is stated that the respondent has clearly stipulated in its email dated 12.09.2018 that only Rs. 5,26,480/-is pending and the respondent is willing to pay the same. Therefore, it is clear that both the parties are not at the same footing qua the amount to be paid to the applicant. 10. The Applicant has filed rejoinder controverting the averments made in the reply and asserted that there is no dispute between the parties and the same is clear from the Form No. L-34 which is pass permit and Form No. L-32 which is liquor permit issued by the Excise and Taxation Department Government of Haryana in favour of the corporate debtor establishing that the goods were supplied by the applicant and were accepted by the Corporate debtor without rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application." We have considered the facts of the present case in the context of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. The contentions of the corporate debtor that the post-dated cheques were to be deposited only after due confirmation by the respondent on the final amounts of goods supplied by the applicant, is not found to be correct in view of the rejoinder filed by the applicant as discussed above. The applicant is correct in stating that the confirmation was only with respect to the dates of presenting the cheques to the bank and despite ample time given, only vague statements about not being able to speak to the management have being made. 14. Further, the contention that the only Rs. 5, 26,480/- is due to the applicant is not substantiated in any way. The demand notice under section 8 of IBC, 2016 was duly served and remained unresponded. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that there is a pre-existing dispute of gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any person, on its behalf had received in any manner the amount due to them as required under section 9(3)(c) of IBC, 2016 nor has any notice of dispute been received /raised by the corporate debtor under section 9(3)(b) of the IBC, 2016. 19. The registered office of corporate debtor is situated in Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application. 20. The default is stated to be occurred from 07.04.2017 and hence the debt is not time barred and the application is filed within the period of limitation. 21. In the given facts and circumstances, the present application in prescribed form is complete and the Applicant is entitled to claim its dues, which remain uncontroverted by the Corporate Debtor, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt beyond doubt. Form No. 2 of the proposed Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) has been filed vide diary No. 6581 dated 12.09.2018 and stipulated that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against with the board or the Insolvency Professional Agency. In the light of above facts and records, the present application is admitted, in terms of section 9 (5) (i)of IBC, 2016. 22. The Applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
