TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.01.2018. The present petition was filed on 17.08.2018, more than six months after receipt of the said reply - As the Corporate Debtor s reply dated 16.01.2018, had clear indication of dispute, the present petition filed by the applicant is not admissible, as per section 9(1). The application is dismissed as it is not admissible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. - CP No (IB)-1049(ND)/2018 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2019 - SMT INA MALHOTRA, MEMBER (J) AND MS. DEEPA KRISHAN, MEMBER (T) For The Operational Creditor/Applicant : Mr Puneet Singh Bindra and Ms Simran Jeet, Advocates For The Corporate Debtor/Respondent : Mr Gurcharan Singh, Mr Ashish Aggarwal and Mrs. Gurkand Hora Arora, Advocates JUDGMENT Ms. Deepa Krishan, Member.( Technical) 1. The Operational Creditor , M/s Beacon Courier and Cargo Private Limited has filed the instant application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity the Code ) with a prayer for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor , M/s Trim India Private Limited (for brevity the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. In this reply, the Corporate Debtor has stated that there is no outstanding as alleged in the notice. Extracts of the 1st reply are reproduced for reference: - During November, 2015, the officials of Trim India Pvt. Ltd. discovered that you the addressee sent excessive charged bills. When the same was raised before the owner of you the addressee i.e. Mr. Laxmi Raj Singh, he admitted the faults. In order to compensate the same you the addressee through Mr. Laxmi Raj Singh agreed for the debit onto them and accordingly initially ₹ 60 lakhs were debited on the Beacon Courier and Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. The balance was to be done after complete verification. Our client reserve it s right to initiate proper action based on complete verification of the bills sent by your good selves. As per the information received from our client, our client is scrutinising all bills and the same will take time as the bills are ranging from the period of year 2013 to 2017 therefore in order to reply the abovementioned legal notice of yours, on merit require some time and the same cannot be replied in 15 days as asked in the notice . 5.1 Subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below: - a. The Notice was not signed by any Authorised Representative contrary to Form 3 and Form 4. Only to signed by some employee related to HR work. b. No copies of the necessary documents including entire statement of account and all the invoices annexed to the said notice. It is pertinent to mention here that no postal receipt of the said notice has been placed on record by the applicant. The same was however received by the respondent on or around 8/9.1.2018 . 10. The Respondent has stated that in fact it is the applicant who is liable to pay the following amounts to the respondent: - a. ₹ 1,69,08,557.87 on account of excess charges claimed for the excess weight/size. b. ₹ 1,17,12,763.33 towards Forwarding Cost Difference. c. An excess payment of ₹ 61,49,985/- was taken under the alleged head of Mathadi . d. Wrongly charged freight of ₹ 32,52,188.64. e. As such the defendant had overcharged a total sum of ₹ 3,80,23,494.84 . 10.1 The Respondent has already filed a suit for reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice dated 30.12.2017 . This affidavit dated 11.08.2018 is not correct as the replies of the Corporate Debtors to the section 8 notice that have been enclosed with the petition, show otherwise. 14. The records show that there has been detailed correspondence between the parties regarding excess charges billed by the applicant since 14.07.2016. It is also seen that five debit notes of ₹ 60 lakhs in total were paid by the applicant to the Corporate Debtor and the correspondence shows that the dispute was not settled with the payment of these debit notes. A copy of the FIR filed in Gurgaon Police Station by the Director of the Corporate Debtor against Mr. Laxmi Raj Singh, Manju Solanki, Vikas Solanki, Mr. Anil Khatana (Directors/employees of the Operational Creditor) on 25.06.2018 has also been filed before us. However, the same was not disclosed in the petition, even though the same it was filed on 17.08.2018. Similarly, details of the pending court cases were not disclosed. 15. We have perused the record and considered the averments and arguments made by both the parties. We find that the operational creditor has not disclosed the full material p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
