TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is evident that there is/are preexisting dispute regarding the supply of goods and, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable. Further, the petitioner has not filed affidavit of no dispute as required under Section 9 (3)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which is the requirement of an application filed under section 9 of the code - On perusal of the record it is found that it requires further investigation. The operational creditor cannot use the Insolvency Code either prematurely or for extraneous consideration as a substitute for debt enforcement procedure. The application so filed is not maintainable and hence stands dismissed. - C.P. (I.B) No.382/NCLT/AHM/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2020 - Ms. MANORAMA KUMA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the goods supplied by the applicant but failed to make payment despite follow-up by the applicant. 5. The operational creditor has further stated that an amount of ₹ 9,39,730.14 (Rupees nine lacs thirty-nine thousand seven hundred thirty and paise fourteen only) is outstanding to be paid by the corporate debtor towards operational debt. 6. The operational creditor has further stated that having failed to receive the operational debt, demand notice under section 8 of the I B Code was issued on 16.02.2019 demanding unpaid operational debt at the registered office. of the respondent company. That, the applicant received reply of demand notice from the respondent company on 01.03.2019 whereby the corporate debtor denied the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it note dated 17.08.2018 claiming an amount of ₹ 11,12,721/- against the petitioner for quality difference . On perusal of the records it is found that, in response to the demand notice dated 16.02.2019, the respondent had issued reply dated 01.03.2019 raising dispute regarding quality/quantity of the goods supplied by the applicant and claiming to have reconciled and settled the accounts between the two parties after considering the debit note and the rebate given later through the credit note. 11. The second objection raised by the respondent is that the debit note dated 17.08.2018 is raised by the respondent company upon the petitioner much before issuance of demand notice dated 16.02.2019 and the petitioner had settled the acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
