TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils of ADMs receipt for Married Segments Policy violation were sent by the Operational Creditor. The ADMs were issued by Air France/KLM and Turkish Airlines, in the present case the Travel Boutique Online which are the brand name of the Operational Creditor. Thus, the primary responsibility for responding to the ADMs is of the ticketing agency Travel Boutique Online . Since, the Adjudicating Authority has primarily looked at the non-supply of ADMs to the Corporate Debtor in support of the contention regarding pre-existing dispute, we are of the view that it has committed an error by not considering the fact that the Operational Creditor had supplied the copies of the ADMs which is evidenced by emails dated 19.01.2018 and 24.03.2018 - the purported dispute considered by the Adjudicating Authority as a result of non-supply of copies of ADMs is more like a sham dispute, and it should not come in the way of admission of Section 9 application. Section 9 application of the Operational Creditor should be admitted. The case is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing necessary order which should include order regarding all consequential actions which should follow upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived by the Operational Creditor, which had made flight bookings on behalf of the Respondent, but the requisite payments were not made by the Corporate Debtor, and hence, the Operational Creditor Tek Travels Pvt. Ltd. was forced to file an application under Section 9 of the IBC, which was rejected by the impugned order on the ground of pre-existing dispute. 4. We heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and also perused the record. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the Adjudicating Authority has rejected his Section 9 application on the ground of pre-existing dispute between the parties even though the Corporate Debtor had never communicated to the Appellant/Operational Creditor any deficiency quality of timeliness of services and purported dispute was raised by the Corporate Debtor before issuing the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC. He has further argued that the Corporate Debtor has made part payment against the invoices issued by the Operational Creditor and if there had been any dispute about the said invoices, no payments would have been made. He has further referred to an email sent by the Appellant/Operational Creditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paper book) wherein the Corporate Debtor in Para 6 has stated as follows:- ..Alleged dues as claimed by the Petitioner allegedly arises out agency debit memos ADMs so issued by the Petitioner against the Respondent. The Respondent states that ADM is a notice that an airline carrier sends to a travel agency, telling the travel agency that the ticket was wrongly booked and asking that agency to pay a certain amount of money for the same. In the present case, the tickets were booked by the Petitioner itself with the airline company, with which the Petitioner has tie up. The Respondent states that it has no tie up with airlines company and therefore uses Petitioner s platform for booking tickets 9. Further, in paragraph 9 of the reply of the Respondent it is stated by him as follows:- Respondent states that the Respondent raised the dispute much prior to filing of the present petition or even the alleged demand notice dated 18.10.2019. The Respondent states that the Petitioner on 09.01.2018 the Petitioner informed the Respondent about the ADMs and informed the Respondent that once the issue of ADM is raised same will be duly informed. The Respondent on receipt of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the email in order to prove its claim. The applicant has denied the allegations. However, the documents on records show that the respondent raised its dispute much above before issuance of demand notice. It is seen that vide an email dated 10.01.2018 clearly shows that it had raised a bonafide dispute regarding the claims as n that date there were no ADMs available to it and the respondent stated that any payment against the said ADM can be made only on the receipt of the same which the petitioner failed to furnish and the same was not paid accordingly. 13. From the paragraph 6 of the impugned order, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has relied on the email dated 10.01.2018 to infer that a bonafide dispute exists between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor and regarding the claims as on that date there were no ADMs available to the Corporate Debtor. We also find that vide emails dated 19.01.2018 and 24.03.2018 the copies of the said ADMs were supplied to the Corporate Debtor. These copies were, therefore, supplied much before the issuance of the demand notice on 18.10.2019 and therefore no dispute existed before the issue of demand notice under section 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
