TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices etc. - On perusal of the records it is also found that the respondent has produced a copy of letter/email, raising a dispute regarding quality of the goods supplied by the applicant. From the above it is evident that much before issuance of demand notice dated 27.06.2019, there is/was a dispute between the parties regarding quality of the goods. In the instant application, the material placed on record by both the parties clearly establish that there is/was dispute regarding quality of the goods supplied to the respondent by the Applicant. That apart, the advocate who has issued the demand notice is/was not authorised to issue the demand notice - Petition dismissed. - C.P. No. (IB) 808/9/NCLT/AHM/2019 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the corporate debtor towards eleven invoices raised by the applicant during the period from 02.05.2018 to 12.05.2018. 5. The applicant has further submitted that despite several reminders the respondent has not paid the operational debt due and payable, therefore, this petition. 6. The applicant has further submitted that having failed to receive the operational debt due from the respondent company, the applicant was compelled to issue demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 dated 27.06.2019 calling upon the respondent to release the dues aggregating to ₹ 41,24,154/-. 7. The applicant in support of its claim has furnished copy of documents like; affidavit in support of the application, af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng quality of the goods supplied by the applicant. From the above it is evident that much before issuance of demand notice dated 27.06.2019, there is/was a dispute between the parties regarding quality of the goods. 12. Notwithstanding above, it is also observed that the consignment number given in the track report and in the postal receipt does not match thereby meaning that the service is incomplete. Moreover, in form 5, part-I, (page 6) name of the respondent is wrongly mentioned. 13. In the instant application, the material placed on record by both the parties clearly establish that there is/was dispute regarding quality of the goods supplied to the respondent by the Applicant. That apart, the advocate who has issued the demand no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
