9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Medinnebelle Herbalcare Private Limited (hereinafter, Respondent/Corporate Debtor). 2. As per averments made in the petition, that the applicant was proprietor of the registered trade mark "NPD ENDURA MASS". The said trademark was assigned to the respondent vide assignment deed dated 19.01.2018 for a consideration of Rs. 4,44,00,000/- excluding GST. It is stated that the respondent paid Rs. 3,96,00,000/- vide two demand drafts bearing No. 503542 and 503543 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. after deducting Rs. 44,00,000/- amount for TDS. It is stated that the respondent did not pay the GST amount 52,80,000/-. 3. It is submitted that the respondent in order to discharge the liability of GST payment had i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of consideration and if not then it is a disputed question, which should be adjudicated by a competent authority. It has been pointed out that page 40 of the assignment deed provided that "Received on 9th January 2018 from Medinn Bellee Herbal Care Pvt. Ltd., a gross consideration amount of Indian Rs. 4,40,00,000/- .....", and the word "Gross Consideration" means GST is included in the amount. iii. It is also claimed that the entire transaction has now became null and void due to various criminal acts including fraud and cheating by applicant and criminal proceedings are pending. It is also claimed that applicant is liable to return full consideration and atleast not entitled to enforce any of its rights. iv. It is submitted that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r itself has paid Rs. 1,70,00,000/- to Mr. K.N. Prasad and on the other hand the corporate debtor is claiming that Mr. K.N. Prasad had conspired with applicant to commit fraud with corporate debtor. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the corporate debtor has filed some additional document on record such as letter dated 12.03.2018 in order to show disagreement between the parties regarding payment of GST. It is pertinent to mention here that the corporate debtor in its letter dated 12.03.2018 itself has acknowledged the issuance of cheque for Rs. 52,80,000/- in respect of payment of GST amount. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. We have perused the averments made in the application, reply, and rejoinder and written submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the defence is likely to succeed. The court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application." (emphasis given). 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, since the corporate debtor already-issued a cheque in order to clear its liability towards payment of GST, the claim of applicant deserves to be allowed. 13. The applicant has not proposed the name of an IRP, therefore, this bench appoints Mr. Santanu Kumar Samanta, as the Insolvency Resolution Professional of the corporate debtor. The registration number of the IRP being IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P02324/2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
