TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serving of demand notice under section 8 and the Operational Creditor had notice of existence of such dispute. Further, this dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory. This petition as under section 9(5)(2)(d) is rejected. - C.P. (IB) No. 3038 Of 2018 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2019 - Bhaskara Pantula Mohan, Judicial Member And Shyam Babu Gautam, Technical Member Hamel R. Patel and Akshay M. Gosavi, Advs. for the Petitioner. Shyam Kapadia, Deepak Deshmukh and Aman Chaudhary, Advs. for the Respondent. ORDER Bhaskara Pantula Mohan, This Company Petition is filed by Fortune Intech Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter called Petitioner ) seeking to set in motion the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing issues based on which it was Petitioner who was in breach of the Agreement executed between the parties. The issues were: (a) the Petitioner in breach of the leave and license agreement has without the knowledge of the Corporate Debtor has allowed mortgage of the land. (b) These actions of the Petitioner have resulted in the banks first obtaining the symbolic possession and then physical possession of the land, due to which the Corporate Debtor was forced to vacate the licensed premises by terminating the Agreement on 10th March 2018. 5. The Petitioner therefore filed a petitioner under section 9 of the Code on 10.08.2018. 6. The Corporate Debtor in his reply has unearthed various facts that according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs of outstanding rent from Nov' 16 to Feb' 17. 10. The Corporate Debtor further reveals that on 28.06.2017 Dena Bank issued possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on behalf of the consortium banks, wherein it was told that the borrower and the Petitioner owed a total amount of ₹ 347,63,87,296/- to them and the public at large was requested not to deal with the licensed premises. 11. After observing the Corporate Debtor had no other option but to issue a Legal Notice dated 14.07.2017, pointing out the breaches committed on the part of the Petitioner herein. It was said that the Corporate Debtor had incurred a cost of ₹ 1,66,00,000/- towards renovations, installation of furnitur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply and rejoinder filed by the parties. We have heard the Counsel for both the sides and are of the view that based on the documents and the reply filed by the Corporate Debtor it is clear that many disputes have been raised by the Corporate Debtor with regards to forceful eviction from the Leased premises due to the breaches by the Petitioner. The disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor squarely falls within the ambit of Section 5 (6) of the Code which provides as below: ' dispute includes a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to- (a) the existence of the amount of debt; (b) the quality of goods or service; or (c) the breach of a representation or warranty;' 16. The Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
