TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e outstanding dues of Rs. 1,79,47,390/-, the Corporate Debtor replied to the Demand Notice wherein it stated that there is a pre-existing dispute regarding the outstanding amount demanded by the Operational Creditor. It is clear that the Corporate Debtor has raised an issue with the services provided by the Operational Creditor prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice; and also, in the reply to the Demand Notice the Corporate Debtor informed the Operational Creditor about the pre-existing dispute. It can not be said that the dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor is afterthought and only in view of avoid its admission in CIRP - The disputes projected require thorough inquiry before proper forum. This Adjudicating Authority cannot undertake that exercise in its limited jurisdiction in hearing of application under section 9 IBC. Application dismissed. - CP (IB) 679/MP/2019 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2022 - M. B. Gosavi , Member ( J ) And Kaushalendra Kumar Singh , Member ( T ) For the Appellant : Arjun Sheth , Ld. Adv For the Respondents : Ritesh Kumar Sharma , Ld. Adv ORDER 1. This application has been filed by Mr. Vishwanath Iyer, Director of M/s. AXYKNO Capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-B under which the Operational Creditor was required to search for a partner for the Corporate Debtor for the upcoming coal block tenders namely, Kerandari A, Tadicheria II, and Manoharpur. As per the said work order following invoices were raised by the Operational Creditor: a. Invoice dated 14.04.2017 for the advance of Rs. 2,87,500/- b. The claims of actual travel and lodging of the team were raised through several debt notes for Rs. 1,16,225/-. c. Invoice dated 02.05.2017 of Rs. 2,87,500/- for assistance and finalization of project-specific MOU. iv. The Corporate Debtor had handed over the Operational Creditor cheque of Rs. 2,62,500/- dated 02.05.2017 and that came to be dishonoured. v. Work order III dated 11.04.2017 bearing reference No. DBL/2017-18/115-A in which the Operational Creditor was required to assist the Corporate Debtor with bid advisory of Tadicherla-II Coal Block. For the said work order the Operational Creditor provided the Corporate Debtor with certain details with regards to Tadicherla-II Coal Block. Further, an invoice for the same work was raised of Rs. 2,87,500/-. vi. Work order IV dated 11.04.2017 bearing reference No. DBL/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debtor in its affidavit in reply and submission made thereon and as presented/argued by the learned counsel for the Corporate Debtor are summarized as under: i. The Demand Notice is signed by Mr. Vishwanath Iyer without there being any authorization by the Operational Creditor authorizing him to issue the Demand Notice. Therefore, it is null and void. ii. The Corporate Debtor has established and communicated well in advance that there was a pre-existing dispute against the demand/operational debt of the Operational Creditor. The said demand/operational debt does not fall under the definition claim , due to poor and deficient services provided by the said Operational Creditor which result in losses of business opportunities of the Corporate Debtor. iii. There is a prima facie bona fide dispute which had been raised by the Corporate Debtor before the issuance of the Demand Notice issued by the Operational Creditor. The grounds of dispute were the quality and deficiency of services provided by the Operational Creditor and such dispute was raised vide letter dated 18.04.2019 issued by the Corporate Debtor upon the Operational Creditor in response to the notice dated 19.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Notice without any authorization. A copy of the resolution dated 07.05.2019 passed by the Board of Directors of Operational Creditor authorizing Mr. Vishwnath Iyer for issuing the Demand Notice is placed on record with the rebuttal affidavit. b. The Operational Creditor denies that the Corporate Debtor has established that there was a pre-existing dispute with respect to the claim/demand of the Operational Creditor; and that the services provided by the Operational Creditor have resulted in the loss of business opportunities to the Corporate Debtor; and that there is any pre-existing dispute between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, the pre-existing dispute sought to be relied upon by the Corporate Debtor is nothing but an afterthought. c. The Corporate Debtor merely to avoid its liability to pay the outstanding dues of the Operational Creditor has written the letter dated 18.04.2019. The said dispute has been raised after a period of 19 months from the last date of the invoice. If at all the Corporate Debtor has any issues/grievances pertaining to the quality of services by the Operational Creditor, then it may/could have raised objections or cancelled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
