TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petition before this Tribunal against the Corporate Debtor under the provisions of IBC, 2016. In view of lack of compliance of the mandatory provisions. As stated by the respondents that it is not insolvent Company and it is earn profits earned profit for the year 2017. The amount claimed by the petitioner also clearly disputed by the respondents. The amounts claimed is ₹ 68,94,997/- are inflated invoices raised by the Petitioner, of which the Liquidated Damages payable by the Petitioner amounting to ₹ 12,75,850/- inflated billing in the invoices raised by the Petitioner amounting to ₹ 15,59,341/- and an amount of ₹ 40,59,806/- was deducted and adjusted as a result of breach of contract and no amount is due o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assets of the Respondent Company. 2. Brief facts, leading to filing of the Company Petition, are as follows: (a) The Company Petition is transferred from the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad to the Tribunal, in pursuance to the notification given by the Central Govt. and the same is taken on record of this Tribunal. (b) The Petitioner Company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is into manufacture of galvanized steel structure towers and supplier of solar module mounting structure. The Respondent is a Private limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a subsidiary of LANCO Infratech Limited/Lanco Group, deals in the business of manufacturing and marketing of photovoltaic p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8% and CST). (g) The Petitioner Company had issued a notice dated 20.12.2013 indicating the admitted outstanding dues as on date and calling for the payment of the admitted amount due. Instead of complying with the demand notice, the Respondent chose to send a belated reply dated 25.03.2014. The Respondent Company despite having received the material supplied by the Petitioner Company and despite utilizing the said material, has failed to clear the outstanding dues, even after giving sufficient time and the Petitioner Company having no other option left, has sent a Statutory Demand Notice on 07.10.2014 as provided under section 434(1)(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 by inter-alia demanding the Respondent to pay amount of ₹ 1,08,58,02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. D.V.A.S. Ravi Prasad, Advocate for the respondent. 4. The Learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that in complying with the notifications of the Central Government after promulgation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Petitioner filed the documents following documents in the instant petition: a. The written Communication by proposed interim resolution Professional under Rule 9. b. Affidavit declaring the amount in dispute is not pending in any other suit or arbitration in India. c. Affidavit declaring the efforts being made with the Financial Institutions for obtaining confirmation that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor. 5. The Company Petition is opposed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts made in the Petition and states that as claimed by the Respondent it is not a Time barred debt in which the details stated as the statutory notice under the Companies Act, 1956 was issued to the Respondent on 07-10-2014 and upon receipt of reply notice dated 06-12-2014 denying the liability and without raising any question of limitation, the Petitioner has filed the Company Petition on 23.07.2015 before the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad. It is also further contended that there is subsequent notification issued by the Central Government that the barred time has been extended. The objection raised that the documents/information were not submitted within 6 months from the date of notification is also not maintainable as there is sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. Therefore, it is clear case of disputes the Adjudicating Authority cannot enter into roving enquiry when the amount is not specific. And also the petitioner has not complied all procedures prescribed under the provisions of IBC, 2016, after transfer the case from the High court of AP. Therefore, instead of examining several disputed questions with regard to amount in question, and in complying with procedures prescribed under IBC, 2016, after transfer the case from High court, it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of the case, with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh in accordance with provisions of IBC, 2016. And it is not a fit case to admit. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, C.P. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
