TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they have already paid taken into consideration to the extent that amount is due for the service rendered by the Petitioner. Therefore, this passing on the SMS exchange for the services rendered cannot be treated as debt and default. It is not possible for the Tribunal to verify the veracity of the SMS exchanged by the parties. Therefore, we are not in a position to accept the debt and default and we are convinced that the amount due to be paid was duly paid. - CP (IB) No. 12/BB/2018 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - SHRI RAJESWARA RAO VITTANALA, MEMBER (J) AND DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER (T) For The Petitioner : Mr Biju T. M. For The Respondent : Dr. T. Somashekar ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owledged by the Corporate Debtor. (e) In pursuant to the claim made by the Petitioner, the Corporate Debtor has made a part payment of ₹ 2,95,359/- (Two Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Nine only) leaving balance amount of ₹ 11,59,230/- along with interest, of ₹ 4,27,746 (Rupees Four lakh Twenty Seven thousand seven hundred forty six only). In spite of several demands made by the Petitioner, the Corporate Debtor failed to pay the amount. (f) Accordingly the Petitioner issued a legal notice dated 24.11.2017 under the provision of IBC demanded to pay the total amount of ₹ 15,86,976/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eighty Six thousand Nine hundred Seventy Six Only) including interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner and the Corporate Debtor. They have stated that it is true that the Respondents placed two Purchase Orders dated 21.04.2015 and 23.04.2015 to the Petitioner for availing promotional Short Messaging Services (SMS) for text SMS services from the Petitioner. They have also availed several services from the Corporate Debtor by paying the amount due to the Petitioner. 4. It is also submitted that the Respondent has made payment of ₹ 2,95,339/- to the Petitioner, which includes the purchase orders placed by the Respondent to the petitioner but also three- more invoices bearing No. CRM/POST/Jun/15-16/129. CRM/POST/Jul/15-16/075 and CROM/POST/Aug/15-16/086. It is submitted that out of the total amount paid to the Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .09.2015 SMS sent worth ₹ 9,11,856/- and on 31.10.2015 he has sent SMS worth ₹ 1,08,935/-. Contrarily, the Petitioner has raised SMS on 31.12.2015 worth ₹ 78/- It is submitted that as stated supra, it was beyond his business capacity of the Respondent to comply with this huge number of SMS. 8. It is further contended in the absence of written contract between the Petitioner and the Respondent for promotional SMS service, in real sense of the term, dispute does not truly exists between the Petitioner and the Respondent as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations (P.) Limited v. Kirusa Software (P) Limited reported in (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 353, the contentions of the Petitioner raised i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
