TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harges requires extensive evidence because the parties are at variance interalia in respect of the period for which such charges are to be levied. The alleged claim is not crystallised and the Adjudicating Authority while exercising summary power cannot investigate into the matter regarding the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor to pay the demurrage and detention charges. The dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor cannot be said to be spurious, hypothetical or illusory. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the Application filed under Section 9 of the Code based on the ground of the pre-existing dispute - Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 698 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2020 - [ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tuff the import consignment stuffed in the said containers and/or return the empty containers to the empty yard of the careers within the free period which was mutually agreed by the Respondent. The failure to destuff the import consignment, the containers/vehicles incurred detention and demurrage charges. The Appellant further contends that the demurrage charges is an operational cost/expenditure paid by the Appellant on behalf of the Respondent. The principal amount due and outstanding against the Corporate Debtor in respect of pending demurrage invoices aggregating to ₹ 1,50,97,439/-. In addition to this interest @ 24% per annum amounts to ₹ 25,94,012.65 aggregating to total outstanding amount ₹ 1,76,91,452.70. Invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd Vs. Kirusa Software (P) Limited 2017 (SCC Online SC 1154) has rejected the Application filed under Section 9 of the I B Code, 2016. Admittedly, the alleged claim relates to demurrage charges and detention charges amounting of ₹ 1,50,97,439/-. Based on the freight forwarding agreement. It is contended that due to the Corporate Debtors negligence and failure to destuff the import consignment the containers/vehicles incurred detention and demurrage charges for which invoices have been raised. The demand notices dated 05th September 2018 was issued against the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor sent a reply dated 14th September 2018, denying its liability. After that, Section 9 Application was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... why do we have a change in stance many month after the invoices were raised. Based on the above, it is clear that the dispute was raised by email dated 09th March 2018 regarding the alleged claim of demurrage and detention charges. The demand notice regarding the alleged claim has been issued on 05th September, 2018. The issue regarding payment against the detention charges requires extensive evidence because the parties are at variance interalia in respect of the period for which such charges are to be levied. The alleged claim is not crystallised and the Adjudicating Authority while exercising summary power cannot investigate into the matter regarding the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor to pay the demurrage and detention charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the dispute is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the Application. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Adjudicating A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
