TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record by the Petitioner as due from the respondent has been fully paid and are not outstanding. The additional claim amount raised by way of other charges is frivolous, unsubstantiated, not based on any documentary proof and not even any invoices to that effect has been raised from the Petitioner. Further any claim arising out of Journal entries are unilateral adjustment claims and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a claim arising out of supply of goods and services. The contention of the Respondent that it had issued those two cheques of about ₹ 4.16 crores and about ₹ 7.76 lakhs was only as security keeping in mind the business relationship between the parties, appears to be tenable. In any case, the dishonor of the cheques is a subject matter of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and only proves that the Respondent is not interested in paying any security deposit to the Petitioner. The Bench is of the view that it does not relate to any outstanding amount due from the Respondent by way of any operational debt. Petition dismissed. - CP (IB) 424/MB/2020 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2021 - Hon'ble Smt. Suchitra Kanuparthi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent have admitted debt/liability of the two dishonoured cheques of ₹ 4,16,18,466/- and ₹ 7,76,706/- issued by the Respondent, which is as per the Petitioner an admitted liquidated debt/liability by the Respondent. 7. The Petitioner further mentions that on 30.05.2019 they received a confirmation letter issued by the Respondent. After receipt of the said letter wherein the Respondent had admitted the liability of ₹ 4,16,18,466/- and accordingly issued a cheque of ₹ 4,16,18,466/- in favour of the Petitioner, which was payable on 30.06.2019, thus initially the debt of ₹ 4,16,18,466/- fell due on 30.06.2019. 8. The Petitioner states that thereafter they received another letter dated 01.07.2019 from the Respondent seeking extension of time for the presentment of the said cheque by the Petitioner and requesting the Petitioner to make said presentation of the cheque on 31.07.2019 instead of 30.06.2019. 9. The Petitioner states that the Respondent also agreed to pay the delayed payment charges for permitting the extension of said period until 31.07.2019 which amounts to ₹ 7,76,706/-. Thereafter the Respondent issued a cheque of ₹ 7,76 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isclose the type and details of the goods alleged under the debt now sought to be claimed. Therefore, the Respondent mentions that the Petitioner has miserably failed and deliberately neglected to furnish any details with respect to the provisions of goods in terms of date on which these transactions took place, quantities, amounts, purchase orders, contracts, invoices, delivery challans and/or receipts. c. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner has used the term oral orders and usual business practice in order to conceal the fact that there were actually no transactions for provision of goods. The Petitioner has failed to provide any such details as mandate under Section 8 of the Code. The Petitioner failed to produce the aforesaid documents even at the time of inspection held on 19.12.2019 citing that the same are only supplementary as specifically stated in the letter dated 20.12.2019. d. In the absence of any such proof of transactions, the said claim of the Petitioner is merely an extortion based on false and fabricated letters, after forging Respondent s signature and thus the present petition deserves to be dismissed in limine with costs. e. In view of abs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same on the records of the Respondent. f. Regarding the letter of Respondent s Advocate dated 08.01.2020, it was received only after the filing of the NCLT application on 10.01.2020. The Petitioner have replied to the said letter by their letter dated 13.01.2020, which is duly received by the Advocate of the Respondent. FINDINGS 16. The Bench notes that this Petition has been filed by the Applicant, G. L. Engineering Industries Private Limited under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 for a total debt amount of ₹ 4,64,65,107/- due as operational debt from the Respondent. The basis of this claim, as mentioned by the Petitioner, is based on supply of steel material on high seas sale basis as well as domestic sale between the Applicant and the Respondent. 17. The Bench notes that the sole basis of claim, as far the Petition is concerned, rests as the Petitioner mentions, on two confirmation letters dated 30.05.2019 and 01.07.2019 regarding payment of outstanding dues by the Respondent for the supply of steel materials and goods delivered on high seas sales basis and domestic local sales in India. The sum and substance of letter dated 30.05.2019 is that after adjustments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods, this bench while hearing the mater on 27.02.2020, gave one last chance to the Petitioner to submit on affidavit enclosing all the invoices and proof of delivery of the material to the Respondent corresponding to the amount of debt which has been claimed in the Petition. 23. The Bench notes that on 03.03.2020, on affidavit the Petitioner produced 37 invoices which as per the Petitioner are due and payable by the Respondent. The Bench notes that in the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has given a compilation by way of Exhibit O recording the documents and transactions between the parties. The details regarding the 37 invoices raised on M/s. Supreme Engineering by the Petitioner as provided in the Additional Affidavit dated 03-03-2021, is as under:- 24. The Bench notes that the compilation relates to 37 invoices commencing 11.11.2013 to 23.01.2018. The Respondent in reply dated 09.02.2021 has adequately demonstrated invoice-wise that full and complete payment has been made. Each of the invoices of the Petitioner was duly paid on time and thus there was no question of any interest for delayed payments. 25. The Petitioner has again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner. After that all the debit entries are journal entries passed by the Petitioner. These are evidently mere unilateral/adjustment entries passed by the Petitioner without there being any evidence like supporting invoices or any proof of delivery of goods or services to the Respondent or GST payments towards such transactions. A snapshot of ledger account of the Respondent as submitted by the Petitioner from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2020 is as under: It can be seen from the above that these type of journal entries does not support the case of the Petitioner to claim such amounts where unilateral adjustment entries are passed. In other words these are neither any sale or bank receipt entries and hence said claims of the Petitioner lacks merit. 29. The Bench further notes that for this additional amount which has been claimed by the Petitioner by way of random expenses like delay charges, khalapur expenses and travel charges, no supporting invoices have been produced. In fact, the Bench further notes that the claims regarding the delay charges, khalapur expenses, travel charges etc. has no documentary evidence regarding any agreement between the parties. The Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
