9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority'/ 'National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai', while passing the 'Impugned Order', dated 13/02/2023, in C.P.(IB)/159/CHE/2022 (Filed by the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant'/ 'Operational Creditor'), at Paragraph 10, has observed the following: Para 10: "It is not a disputed fact that there is a cased pending before the MSME FC Pondicherry in Case No. 3444/Ind & Com/Unit-III/B7/2020. The same also forms a part of the Applicant/Operational Creditor's submissions. Thus Taking Into consideration the blanket of facts and circumstances of this case, this Adjudicating Authority comes to the inevitable conclusion that this Application is liable to be dismissed as there is a "pre-existing dispute" in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software (P) Limited; 2017 1 SCC Online SC 353." and consequently, dismissed the 'Application'/ 'Petition'. Appellant's Contentions : Assailing the 'Correctness', 'Propriety', 'Validity' and 'Legality' of the 'Impugned Order', dated 13/02/2023, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority'/ 'National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai', the Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner'/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P/IB/159/CHE/2022, before the 'Adjudicating Authority'/ 'National Company Law Tribunal', Division Bench -I, Chennai'. The Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant', points out that eventhough the 'Appellant'/ 'Petitioner', had made a reference, as early as on 07/10/2020, before the 'Chairperson' of 'Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Puducherry', yet the fact of the matter is that, amount due in question, is liable to be paid by the 'Respondent'/ 'Corporate Debtor', and further more, that the mere invocation of Section 18 of the 'Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006', and made use of, by the 'Appellant'/ 'Petitioner', will not itself, entitle the 'Appellant'/ 'Petitioner', to move the main Company 'Petition', before the 'Adjudicating Authority'/ 'National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench -I, Chennai', for getting its due back and that too, with the 'Principal Sum' of Rs. 1,91,55,230 (One Crore Ninety One Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Only), together with interest at 24 %, per Annum, aggregating in all, Rs. 1,75,19,991 (One Crore Seventy Five Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety One Only), especially, when the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een placed on record by the Appellant at Page - 89. Although the subsequent letter shows that the conciliation proceedings had yet to start. We will go a little ahead so that even if the conciliation proceeding was to start, if the Respondent did not raise dispute regarding the supply of goods or quality of services, still it would be open for the Adjudicating Authority to look into the question whether or not dispute as covered under the IBC, is attracted. Para 12: We have seen the Judgements relied on by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. Appellant is not relying merely on TDS deducted to make claim. The liability is claimed on the basis of invoices raised and permitted by Section 9(3) of IBC. Reliance is placed on invoices and documents relied on in Section 9 Application. Para 13: We do not find that there was any pre-existing dispute raised by Respondent and we hold that the Section 9 Application was wrongly rejected. Para 14: No other shortcoming in the Section 9 Application has been pointed out in the Impugned Order. As such, Impugned Order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. We remit back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. The parties are directed to appear be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant'/ 'Operational Creditor', had raised more than '1716 Invoices', for a total value of Rs. 6,82,66,341(Six Crores Eighty Two Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Forty One Only) and that the 'Respondent'/ 'Corporate Debtor', had effected the payment amounting to Rs. 4,91,11,111 (Four Crores Ninety One Lakhs Eleven Thousand Hundred and Eleven Only), leaving a balance of Rs.1,91,55,230 (One Crore Ninety One Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Only). In fact, the last demand, according to the 'Appellant'/ 'Petitioner'/ 'Operational Creditor', was made by the 'Respondent'/ 'Corporate Debtor', on 23/06/2020. The Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant'/ 'Operational Creditor', comes out with a 'Plea' that the 'Adjudicating Authority'/ 'National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai' had merely placed 'Reliance', upon the reference, under Section 18 of the 'Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006', dated 07/10/2020, made by the 'Petitioner'/ 'Appellant'/ 'Operational Creditor', addressed to the 'Chairperson' of the 'Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Puducherry' and that its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
