TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments that before issuance of demand notice dated 24.02.2020, there were genuine disputes with regard to quality and quantity of the goods supplied by the applicant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [ 2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT ] that in case of genuine dispute raised by the corporate debtor, the application cannot be admitted. Application dismissed. - Company Application No. CP (IB) 344/NCLT/AHM/2020 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2022 - Dr. Deepti Mukesh , Member ( J ) And Ajai Das Mehrotra , Member ( T ) For the Appellant : Aditya Bihani , Advocate For the Respondents : Jaimin Dave , Advocate ORDER 1. This application is filed und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate debtor would make periodical lump sum payments. Last payment received by the applicant was on 21.07.2017. Last such invoice was raised on 07.09.2017. 5. The applicant further states that payment against 187 bills are outstanding from the corporate debtor for the period from 26th September 2016 to 7th September, 2017. Subsequent to the last payment received of 21.07.2017, numerous reminders were sent to the corporate debtor, however, the corporate debtor failed to discharge its liabilities. Consequently, the outstanding dues for the aforesaid invoices are acknowledged by the corporate debtor in its ledger accounts maintained by the applicant. Copy of ledger account for the year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 is annexed to the application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s prior dispute between the applicant and the corporate debtor as evidenced by letter dated 08.05.2015, 15.10.2016, 16.01.2017, 24.07.2018 and email dated 09.12.2016; Prior to issuance of the demand notice the corporate debtor had raised the issue of inferior quality of goods supplied by the applicant by letters/email referred above; The invoices/challans submitted by the applicant bears no authenticity owing to various discrepancies and, therefore, the same were neither accepted nor accounted by the corporate debtor; Claim is time barred; There is no admission/acknowledgement of debt by the corporate debtor; 9. The applicant filed written submissions stating that: The total sales undertaken by the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application is not barred by limitation. 13. Heard submissions and perused the documents on record. On perusal of the records it is found that the corporate debtor has brought on record letters dated 08.05.2015, 15.10.2016, 16.01.2017, 24.07.2018 and email dated 09.12.2016 sent to the applicant. Relevant portion of such letters/email forwarded by the corporate debtor is reproduced here below: Letter dated 08.05.2015 In relevance to our discussions, we would like to mention that lately, we are receiving very poor and non-standard quality of the below mentioned materials: A) Stone Chips B) Fly-Ash Bricks C) Electrical Items D) Steel E) Cement Keeping in mind that you had supplied us standard quality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip. Request you to please take note on the above. Email dated 09.12.2016 I want to again write that very poor quality materials are given by Damanji specially the bricks and cement Letter dated 16.01.2017 Please refer to our earlier letters dated 8th May, 2015 and 15th October, 2016 stating the poor quality of materials and unethical practices being adhered by your company towards supply of materials and adopting unethical means of generating false challans and invoices. In addition to the above, please note that we would request you to please submit the correct challans and invoices for us to reconcile the book of accounts at the earliest. The invoices raised by you are incorrect and neither of the ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the matter of Mobilox Innovative Private Limited vz. Kirusa Software Private Limited that in case of genuine dispute raised by the corporate debtor, the application cannot be admitted. Relevant portion of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mobilox Innovative Private Limited vz. Kirusa Software Private Limited is reproduced below: 40. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the Adjudicating Authority must reject the application under Section 9 (5) (2) (d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
