TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ality of goods supplied. The Applicant has contended that the Respondent has admitted its debt by issuing cheques for payment of the same and thus, cannot claim that the debt is disputed. Although it s true that the Respondent issued cheques for payment of the debt and in normal course this can be taken as an acknowledgment of debt, here it has to be noted that the cheques were not honored due to the reason that the Respondent stopped the payment of the same and not due to insufficiency of funds. This furthers the contention of the Respondent that there is a pre-existing dispute due to which the Respondent is not required to pay the Applicant s claims. Since the Respondent has successfully established the existence of a dispute betwee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,816/- were made by the Applicant towards balance payment as on 31.03.2017. Hence, the principal amount due and payable under the abovementioned invoices is ₹ 19,65,818/- as on date of filing the present application. iv. Vide email dated 16.05.2017 the Respondent was informed that the Applicant was constrained to put the further orders on hold, owing to non-payment of invoices. Vide email dated 24.05.2017 the Respondent informed that in part discharge of the liability the Respondent has issued a cheque bearing no. 005483 and shared a copy of the same as proof of payment with the Applicant. v. Vide email dated 08.06.2017 the Respondent for the first time raised a frivolous allegation that the goods delivered were of inferior qual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demand notice the Respondent would have replied to the same. ii. The Respondent vide email dated 02.05.2017 placed purchase order no. NEC/0176 dated 29.04.2017 for supply on urgent and priority basis. Thereafter, the Respondent sent email dated 09.05.2017, 10.05.2017, 12.05.2017, 15.05.2017, 27.05.2017, 30.05.2017, 31.05.2017 and 05.06.2017 to the Applicant requesting the Applicant to dispatch material on urgent basis since the production of the Respondent is held up due to delay in supply of materials. However, when the Respondent did not get any response from the Applicant, the Respondent vide another email dated 05.06.2017 informed the Applicant that due to non-supply of the material, the production is hindered which has caused heav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged to be written by the Respondent to the Applicant. further, the Respondent s reply would itself show that out of the ten emails annexed by the Respondent on record, there is only on letter allegedly written by the Respondent to the Applicant which only goes to show that letters were never the preferred mode of communication between the parties. 5. We have perused the documents filed by the parties and heard their arguments. The Applicant has annexed two invoices - invoice no. 55 dated 12.04.2017 for ₹ 4,81,043/- and invoice no. 103 dated 13.04.2017 for ₹ 14,84,775/- for claiming that the Respondent owes the Applicant ₹ 19,65,818/-. The Respondent is mainly relying on two debit notes issued by the Respondent to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
