Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (11) TMI 1778

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Debtor company then why the impugned small amount remained outstanding. The answer is obvious that there was dissatisfaction due to which the Debtor had informed the Petitioner to remove the defective chemicals. The case laws cited, although by the Petitioner, supports this view considering the evidence on record in this case. Considering all the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Company Petition is liable to be dismissed as dispute was in existence. Petition dismissed. - C.P.(IB)-198(MB)/2018 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2018 - Mr. M.K. Shrawat Member (Judicial) JUDGMENT It is a Company Petition filed u/s 9 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 submitted on 09.01.2018 by the Petitioner/Operational Creditor viz. Tulip .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ost stopped responding to their calls and after making several efforts, the Corporate Debtor during 2015-17 again issued few cheques towards payment of outstanding. Out of them, two cheques again dishonoured. After considering all payments received till October 2016, a balance of 2,78,772 remained outstanding. 4. The Petitioner has made several attempts to get cleared the outstanding amount, however, only promises made by the Corporate Debtor and failed to settle the outstanding amount for over two years, which made the Petitioner to take recourse of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 5. Accordingly, the Petitioner issued demand notice on Form No.3 u/s 8 of the IBC upon the Corporate Debtor dated 06.09.2017 demanding the outsta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Corporate Debtor during the period. The Petitioner also proposed the name of Interim Resolution Professional and his consent letter has also filed along with the Petition. 8. The Corporate Debtor in its reply submits that the basic outstanding payment claimed by the Petitioner is true, however, it was not paid by the Corporate Debtor due to the goods supplied i.e. PHOSPHORUS TRIBROMIDE and BENZYL BROMIDE vide challan No. 0073 dated 08.11.2014 was inferior and substandard quality, which was intimated to the Petitioner through courier on 18.02.2015. The Corporate Debtor also attached the courier receipt, intimation letter in respect of rejection of goods, Chemist report, specification reports, certificate of analysis, etc. along with th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the defective material from the premises of the Debtor company so far. If he is interested to recover the said small amount of 2,78,772 it is his duty to take back its defective material. Communication made in this regard are referred by Ld. Counsel for Corporate Debtor. 9. The Petitioner has relied upon few judgments in respect of the law laid down about the dispute in existence such as - (i) M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. vs. M/s. Ankit Metal Power Ltd. (Company Appeal (AT), (Insolvency) No. 204 of 2017 decided on 09.11.2017), the Honble NCLAT held as under: 5. From the impugned order we find that the Respondents brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority certain dispute which were also supported by email dated 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... communication informing rejection of defective chemical due to which payment in respect of that very invoice was stopped. The Debtor company had also demonstrated that the chemicals supplied through several other invoices being satisfactory, payments were made. Naturally a question arises that if substantial payment had already been cleared by the Debtor company then why the impugned small amount remained outstanding. The answer is obvious that there was dissatisfaction due to which the Debtor had informed the Petitioner to remove the defective chemicals. The case laws cited, although by the Petitioner, supports this view considering the evidence on record in this case. Considering all the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Compan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates