9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 348 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - Corporate Debtor has denied the claim of the Petitioner - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the Petitioner has failed to submit any documentary evidence with the application to show that the claimed amount is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor. No invoice whatsoever has been submitted before us either. Further, as admittedly stated in the Written Submission filed by the Petitioners, there have been several e-mail correspondence, which indicate that pre-existing disputes have been there between parties - the submission of the Petitioner clearly indicates that there were disputes pre-existing the filing of the instant application u/s.9 of the Code by the Petitioner Company. This Adjudicating Authority is not inclined to admit the instant Application - Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Existence of operational debt. 2. Documentary evidence of debt due and payable. 3. Existence of pre-existing disputes. Detailed Analysis: 1. Existence of operational debt: The Petitioner, M/s. Sirius Transtech Private Limited (STPL), claimed that they were involved in the APSWAN project as a sub-vendor and later entered into a Consortium Agreement with the Respondent, M/s. Akshara Enterprises Private Limited, to bid for the APSWAN and TSWAN projects. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to pay for the services rendered, leading to a demand notice under section 8 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2. Documentary evidence of debt due and payable: The Petitioner submitted four quotations for various services, but the Respondent issued only one Purchase Order dated 8-1-2016. The Petitioner claimed that services were continued based on oral requests from the Respondent. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner failed to provide services as per the Purchase Order and did not raise any invoices. The Tribunal noted that the Petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence or invoices to substantiate the claim of debt due and payable. 3. Existence of pre-existing disputes: The Respondent argued that the Petitioner did not perform as per the Consortium Agreement and caused losses to the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent disputed the claims from the beginning and alleged that the Petitioner raised frivolous claims. The Tribunal observed that there were several email correspondences indicating pre-existing disputes between the parties, including issues like poaching of employees and interim payments. Conclusion: The Tribunal, following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd., determined that the Petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence of the debt being due and payable. Additionally, the existence of pre-existing disputes was evident from the records. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the conditions for admission were not met. Order: The application CP(IB)No.422/9/HDB/2018 filed by the Petitioner was rejected.
|
