9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .H.31, Tinmile hat P.O. Sonapur hat, P.S. Chopra Soanpur hat, Uttar Dinajpur, Pin- 733214, (hereinafter referred as the Corporate Debtor). 3. It is submitted in the petition that the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor had business relationship for a long time. The Operational Creditor upon receiving orders from the Corporate Debtor used to sale, supply and deliver adhesive labels of agreed descriptions to the Corporate Debtor upon agreed terms and conditions as enumerated at the back side of the invoice. 4. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor is indebted to the Operational Creditor for a principle sum of Rs.20,50,572/- along with interest of Rs.8,64,419/- along with further interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The Corporate Debtor has till date failed and neglected to pay the amount despite repeated demands. 5. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor for some obvious mala fide reasons withheld the payments of the following invoices raised upon it with mal intent to enrich itself unjustly. 6. It is submitted that Corporate Debtor, however, made part payment of Rs.13519 against the invoice no. 383 dated 17/05/2017 and Rs.1,09,363/- on 17/07/2017 which amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Debtor were rendered futile by the Corporate Debtor and its Officers avoid making payment to the Operational Creditor. 10. It is submitted that the Operational Creditor sent electronic mail on March 30, 2019 thereby falsely and unlawfully attempted to create a sham, bogus and frivolous dispute in the matter. Upon receipt of such electronic mail, the Operational Creditor was constrained to issue a notice in Form-3 under Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 dated 23rd April, 2019 by registered post with A/D to the Corporate Debtor at its registered office demanding a sum of Rs. 29,18,991/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of respective invoices till the date of notice. The Notice was duly served by the Corporate Debtor but in its reply dated 25/05/2019 again the Corporate Debtor falsely reiterated the same false, frivolous and bogus stand that was taken by it in its email dated March 30,2019. It is submitted that the outstanding amount is an admitted amount but the Corporate Debtor has omitted to pay the said amount without any reasonable cause or excuse. 11. It is submitted that in these circumstances, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Creditor were higher than that charges by other suppliers and despite assurances by the Operational Creditor to revise the same downwards, the Operational Creditor reneged on its promise and continued to bill at the older, higher rates: iii. The bills were accordingly returned by the Corporate Debtor for necessary revision by the Operational Creditor but the Operational Creditor wrongfully failed and neglected to make necessary revisions; iv. That the Operational Creditor had always unjustifiably delayed in making delivery of goods which caused business loss to the Corporate Debtor; v. That the Operational Creditor had wrongfully raised bills including transportation charges though the Corporate Debtor had not agreed to pay and, in fact, had not been made to pay any transportation charges in earlier bills. 16. The Corporate Debtor further submitted the email dated 30th March, 2019 (Annexure-A) is admitted and there is no explanation given for not replying to the same. It is submitted that the notice has been issued in suppression of material facts and records for the unjust and illegal benefits of the Operational Creditor. 17. It is submitted that the payment of all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor failed to maintain the agreed terms and conditions. It is denied that the rates charged by Operational Creditor were higher than the other suppliers. The Corporate Debtor in an illegal manner debited sums which were already paid to the Operational Creditor for the goods sold and supplied to the Corporate Debtor during the Financial Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-1018 on 07/05/2018 i.e. in the Financial Year 2018-2019. There is neither any document on record to show that such payments made during such payments made during those Financial Years were without prejudice or were made under protest. It is submitted that there 19. It is submitted that there is no clarity as to why the Corporate Debtor did not protest when invoices were raised on it and as to why the Corporate Debtor did not make the payment in terms of the invoices. It is denied that prior to even a demand notice being issued by the Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor had in several meetings and discussions notified the Operational Creditor of several breaches by the Operational Creditor. It is further denied that the Operational Creditor had failed to suitably remedy issues and grievances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tters, the Corporate Debtor had raised the issue of quality of goods being inferior in terms of printing, quality of paper and glue. It was also mentioned in the letter dated 30th March, 2019 that the rate charged by the Operational Creditor was higher than other supplier, which was promised to be revised, for which the Operational Creditor had issued the bills at the old rates. The Corporate Debtor had, therefore, returned the bills issued by the Operational Creditor after making necessary correction in that, requesting the Operational Creditor to send revised bills. It was written by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor that they would start giving order only when the Operational Creditor assured that quality of paper, printing and glue would be upto mark. The Corporate Debtor had further complained of delayed delivery of goods which had caused business loss to the Corporate. Another issue relating to charges on account of transportation was also raised in the said letter. 24. In view of these two letters issued before the service of notice under Section 8 of the Code by the Operational Creditor, there is a clear case of preexisting dispute between the parties and, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
