TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not simply rushed through. In proceedings of Section 9 of IBC, such Notice which is prior in time to the Notice sent under Section 8 of IBC, does show that there was pre-existing dispute regarding services rendered. It cannot be stated to be a dispute raised merely for the purpose of dispute - Application rightly rejected - appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1436 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2020 - Justice A.I.S. Cheema Member (Judicial), Justice Anant Bijay Singh Member (Judicial) And Kanthi Narahari Member(Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Rohit Ghosh, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Ms. Raveena Rai and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent : Dr. U.K. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as raised. The Appellant had issued notice (Annexure 12 Page 192) under Section 8 of IBC on 5th April, 2019 to the Corporate Debtor . The Respondent sent reply dated 15th April, 2019 raising disputes that there was unauthorized use of brand keywords by the Appellant and that higher fees had been charged by reporting incorrect geographical locations of the leads. 3. Before the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent Corporate Debtor took defense that before the Demand Notice was sent by the Appellant, the Corporate Debtor had served a Legal Notice dated 23rd March, 2019 with regard to the Agreement dated 9th July, 2019. The Legal Notice pointed out is at Annexure-10 (page 187). In reply before the Adjudicating Authority, the Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant. The Disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor and collusion of Applicant with employees of Corporate Debtor is also evident from the forensic investigation report annexed by the Corporate Debtor is also evident from the forensic investigation report annexed by the Corporate Debtor. Thus, the contention of the Corporate Debtor that Applicant breached the representations and warranties under clause 4(a) of the Contract dates 09.07.2018 amounts to pre-existing dispute. 5. The Adjudicating Authority accordingly rejected the Application. 6. Before us, it is argued by the Appellant that the Application was wrongly rejected. It is claimed that the defense taken by the Respondent was frivolous, spurious and unsubstantiated with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... States to inflate the invoices. According to the Appellant, the earlier invoices had been paid without protest. Leads were generated by the Appellant and provided to the Respondent on regular basis, in the form of Return on Investment . It is also argued that Report of Deloittee is relying only on oral assertions made by representatives of Respondent regarding occurrence of geo-location captured by the Respondent. It is argued that the Appellant cannot manipulate the UTM parameters. It is further argued that gift hampers were distributed in the form of Diwali sweets to the employees of the Respondent including Mr. Uppal and that alleged bribing of Mr. Uppal has no connection to the payment of the invoice dated 28th December, 2018. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Play Games has, as a part of an internal investigation gathered some credible evidence which indicates that either the Chief Marketing Officer of Play Games, Mr. Sachin Uppal, or his immediate kin has received a payment of INR 6,04,346 from LCPPL in October 2017. It has also come to the attention of Play Games that in October 2016, Amit Vora, CEO of LCPPL, has given Sachin a gift hamper as consideration for assisting Amit in his business with Play Games. Prima facie, this appears to be a violation of standard business practices, ethics and Play Games anti-corruption policies. 3. Please note that Play Games is undertaking a comprehensive internal review and investigation into the relationship between Sachin Uppal, Amit Vora and LCPPL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been instructed to inform you that pending the investigation and review, Play Games has currently suspended the Agreement, Services and all outstanding payments to LCPPL under the Agreement. 6. This is without prejudice to the remedies available to Play Games under law, contract and otherwise, and Play Games reserves all its rights and remedies in relation to the subject matter of the letter. Yours sincerely Sd/- Nikhil Narendran Partner Trilegal CC: Play Games24x7 Private Limited 401, 4th FLOOR, Building No.16 Wing-B Interface Complex, Off Link road Malad (West), Mumbai Maharashtra 400067. 10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant claims that such Notice was sent so as to avoid proceedings like the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
