TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] wherein it was held that In the present case, it is not in dispute that there is a debt payable to the Operational Creditor and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor. The pendency of the case under Section 138/441 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, even if accepted as recovery proceeding, it cannot be held to be a dispute pending before a court of law. Thereby we hold that the pendency of the case under Section 138/441 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 actually amounts to admission of debt and not an existence of dispute. Thus, it is a clear admission of debt and this Adjudicating Authority does not have to indulge in the details or the quantum of debt if the debt proved is more than One Lakh and the default is shown to have occurred. Therefore, the Application is admitted and the commencement of the CIRP is ordered - application admitted - moratorium declared. - Company Petition No. IB-1281/ND/2019 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2021 - DR. DEEPTI MUKESH HON BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And MS. SUMITA PURKAYASTHA HON BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Applicant : Mr. P. Bhattacharjee , Adv For the Respondent : None ORDER AS PER SUMITA PURKAYASTHA (MEM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST-0352/2017-2018 26.02.2018 ₹ 34,286/- GST-0361/2017-2018 03.03.2018 ₹ 87,203/- GST-0362/2017-2018 03.03.2018 TOTAL AGGREGATE ₹ 26,35,381/- 5. The Corporate Debtor had issued various chequesdated 01.03.2018, 05.03.2018, 20.03.2018, 12.04.2018, 13.04.2018, 17.04.2018, 20.04.2018, 21.04.2018, 24.04.2018, 25.04.2018, 26.04.2018, 27.04.2018, 28.04.2018, 30.04.2018, in lieu of payment of the Operational Debt, however all the cheques got dishonored and the Bank memo stating Funds Insufficient has been placed on record. Pursuant to this the Applicant served a notice to the Corporate Debtor dated 19.06.2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is submitted by the Applicant that after various follow ups the Corporate Debtor made a payment of ₹ 2,20,313/- on 20.07.2018. 6. As per the averments mentioned in the application the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment therefore, a Demand Notice under section 8 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 9 application, wherein the Corporate Debtor submitted that cheques as mentioned were issued in favour of the Operational Creditor, as an advance payment of the goods/printing paper which was to be supplied by Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor. Due to some reason Corporate Debtor could not fulfill the orders of his clients; consequently orders made to the Operational Creditor were cancelled. Therefore, theCorporate Debtor had asked theOperational Creditor to not en-cash the cheques, as there are insufficient funds in the bank account to honor such cheques. The Corporate Debtor alleges that the Operational Creditor with malafide intention to cause harassment and blackmail pursued to en-cash the cheques in the bank. 10. The Operational Creditor filed its rejoinder dated 04.10.2019 and stated that there is no pre-existence of dispute between the parties. The reply to the Demand Notice dated 30.03.2019 was never received. It is also submitted by the Operational Creditor that the Corporate Debtor has failed to produce any tracking report which could depict that the said reply dated 26.06.2018 to the notice under Section 138of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was ever del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Instruments Act, 1881, even if accepted as recovery proceeding, it cannot be held to be a dispute pending before a court of law. Thereby we hold that the pendency of the case under Section 138/441 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 actually amounts to admission of debt and not an existence of dispute. 16. We would like to draw conclusion as per the ratio laid down by the Hon`ble NCLAT therefore, the issue raised by the Corporate Debtor in the reply dated 26.06.2018 to the notice underSection 138of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, with respect to the amount cannot be considered as a dispute. Even if we consider that the criminal complaint is pending under Section 138of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it actually amounts to admission of debt and not an existence of dispute as per the above mentioned Judgment by the Hon`ble NCLAT. Further the Corporate Debtor has admitted to have received the printing paper for the value of ₹ 12,79,752/- in its reply dated 26.06.2018 to the notice under Section 138of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.therefore, it is a clear admission of debt and this Adjudicating Authority does not have to indulge in the details or the quantum of deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
