TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara, Advocate For the Respondents : Wasif S. Kadri, Advocate ORDER Prasanta Kumar Mohanty, Member (T) 1. The present petition has been preferred by the Operational Creditor, Parimal Corporation under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (herein after referred to as a Code ) seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ( CIRP in Short) against the Corporate Debtor Company namely, Specific Ceramics Limited. 2. The Petitioner/ Operational Creditor is a registered company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, with a VAT registration number 24050703258. The registered office of the Petitioner is situated at U/52, Akashganga Complex, ST Road, At Post Himmatnagar Dist. Sabarkantha, G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has failed and neglected to make payment of the total outstanding amount to the applicant. The applicant has also on several times has approached the respondent company personally however, the respondent company on every occasion has given assurances that the outstanding payment will be released. That, inspite of assurances the respondent company has failed and wilfully neglected to pay its outstanding dues towards the goods and in absence of any response the applicant was compelled to take legal action, and has filed criminal complaint being CR. No. 170 of 2017 registered with Himmatnagar B Division Police Station, against the respondent company of criminal breach of trust and cheating. It is further stated by the petitioner that the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to filing the petition by the Operational Creditor. 12. The Respondent has filed written submission on 17/06/2019 wherein it is submitted that the Respondent in its reply to the petition has filed objections against the petitioner on 10/09/2018 and have denied all the allegations of the petitioner in toto; 12.1 It is submitted that the petitioner has supplied substandard and inferior quality of Goods approximately worth of ₹ 3,00,000.00 in the month of November, 2016 and the respondent checked the material outside the factory premises. As the said goods were of inferior quality and substandard, the Respondent refused to take the delivery and informed the petitioner to take back the delivery of the said goods. On the contrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submitted that the petitioner, with malafide intention to harass and extract money from the respondent, filed a revised sales tax return for the quarter from 01/01/2017 to 31/03/2017. 12.6 It is submitted that thereafter, on 09/06/2017, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the respondent and from the above facts it shows that the petitioner had forged and fabricated the invoices no.134 to 138 which is after thought of the petitioner to harass respondent and hence, this petition requires to be dismissed. 12.7 It is also submitted that the Petitioner has filed a false and fabricated complaint on 09/06/2017 FIR No. 70 of 2017 at Himmatnagar B-Division Police Station. The respondent has challenged the said FIR and filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,095.00 claimed by petitioner under the invoices no.134 to 138 from dated 24/03/2017 to 31/03/2017 are actually not at all due and payable by the respondent. Hence, there is no default regarding the payment of the outstanding dues on the part of respondent as the alleged goods have never been received by respondent. 12.10 It is submitted that the respondent has never received the goods worth of ₹ 45,03,000.00 from the petitioner as alleged and hence when there is no outstanding dues payable to the petitioner there is no default in the payment and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12.11 It is further submitted that all the delivery challans produced by the petitioner do not bear the numbers as mentioned in the invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No.2 through concerned Police Station is permitted. Till the returnable date, the petitioner shall not be arrested with regard to the FIR in question. The Investigating Officer may proceed further with the investigation. However, he shall not file any charge-sheet without prior permission of this Court. 17. NCLT is not the right forum to examine and adjudicate as to which portion of the claims are admissible. Tribunal will also not examine the merits of the dispute. There is a serious allegations of fabrication of documents and misrepresentation. There is confusion about the actual amount defaulted. There is material to believe that disputes certainly exist in the facts of the present case regarding the quality of goods supplied by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
