TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he directors would not be relevant for throwing out of the Application under Section 9 of I B Code, 2016. In any case, that was not a dispute which was raised or communicated to the Operational Creditor any time before Notice under Section 8 was sent. In the facts of the matter, we find that the Adjudicating Authority erred in approaching the Application under Section 9 and the form submitted in a manner as if a plaint was being examined or it was some suit. Considering the format and particulars required to be given in the format, if the Application is complete, it is required to be admitted unless the Corporate Debtor shows Pre-Existing Dispute. Here the dispute raised was that there was no dealing between the Corporate Debtor and the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April, 2018. The document of e-mail as at page 185 shows that the Corporate Debtor received the Notice on 24th April, 2018 and the Corporate Debtor had sent Reply, copy of which is at page 82. The Reply is dated 30th April, 2018. The Respondent claimed internal disputes with one other director of the Corporate Debtor namely Mr. Sudhir Kumar. Respondent claimed in Reply that the Corporate Debtor (which is based in Kolkata) the supply was not in the knowledge of the head office and that their own branch which is at Varanasi had failed to submit books of accounts for periodic compilation, reconciliation and observation. The Corporate Debtor informed the Operational Creditor in Reply to bear with the Corporate Debtor to know about lapse and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Counsel submitted that the Adjudicating Authority erred in going into the defence that the Corporate Debtor Company had internal disputes with one of the directors and that such defence put up by the Corporate Debtor could be looked into to refuse to admit the Application under Section 9 of I B Code, 2016. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent is submitting that if the tax invoice as at Page 84 is perused and the invoice number is seen and the address of the consignee is kept in view which had address at Varanasi, the e-way bill which shows the name of the Corporate Debtor, the address given is of Bhullanpur at Marhauli in Uttar Pradesh and thus it is argued that the goods were never supplied to the Corporate Debtor and this ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority in Paragraph 8 of the Impugned Order went on to analyze the documents filed by the Appellant and observed that the invoice relied on, did not show the delivery address of the Corporate Debtor which was a registered address of the Company and was at Patna in Bihar. It is further observed as under: It is significant to note here that the said invoice refers to delivery of goods at Varanasi. Where as the registered office of the corporate debtor is at Patna. Moreover the registered branch office at Varanasi was shifted to Lucknow as per the registration certificate dated 14.12.2017. (Copy of registration certificate is at page 90 of the Reply). So also it is evident that a complaint was lodged to the ROC Patna alleging financial in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporate Debtor. The Reply sent by the Corporate Debtor copy of which is at Page 82 may be reproduced. The Corporate Debtor in response to Section 8 Notice replied: Dear Sir, In reference to your notice we would like to inform you that negotiation of said business transaction and payment terms conditions, payment reminders follow ups are not in head office information. Your total of this supply is not in knowledge of head office/other promoter Director, Mr. Sudhir Kumar one of the Director of the Company, only uses the name of the company without involving company work, bank transaction etc and personally use the business activity with his fraudulent work and company head office is not aware the matter. Our branch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction. The whole case is individually manipulated motivated. Therefore we need sufficient time for confirmation of this transaction purchase, sale, payment receipt. 6. Thus, the stand taken by the Corporate Debtor shows that the branch office of Corporate Debtor had not communicated with the head office and they wanted to verify and confirm the transactions. The internal disputes of the directors would not be relevant for throwing out of the Application under Section 9 of I B Code, 2016. In any case, that was not a dispute which was raised or communicated to the Operational Creditor any time before Notice under Section 8 was sent. In the facts of the matter, we find that the Adjudicating Authority erred in approaching t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
