9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avel Food Services Chennai Private Limited (hereinafter called "Corporate Debtor") alleging that Corporate Debtor committed default on 24.08.2018 in making payment of Rs. 53,17,953/- including interest @ 18% p.a., by invoking the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter called "Code") read with Rule 5 and 6 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. 2. The petition reveals that the Corporate Debtor approached the Petitioner and requested them to carry out civil work, interior work at Chennai Airport and a work order was issued by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner on 09.08.2016 vide work order no. TFSCPL/Chennai/16-17/165. The Petitioner raised the final invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an aggregate contract value of Rs. 1,14,04,128/- and that the Corporate Debtor had already paid an amount of Rs. 1,04,52,250/-. The ledger statement thus certified the amount paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner. 4. The Corporate Debtor has enclosed the following emails, which were all before the issue of demand notice dated 04.12.2018 to show that there is a pre-existing dispute. (a) Email dated 14.03.2018 sent by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner "Bala We already closed it, you have to prove no delay from your end Whatever documents share by its not justified anything Regards Shadab Sukri" (b) Email dated 15.03.2018 sent by the Petitioner to the Corporate Debtor "According to us we have given all relevant documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 defense which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defense 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". 7. When the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is applied to the facts of the present case it is established that there is a clear dispute relating to the existence of debt a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
