9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 414 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCIRP proceedings - fraudulent activity on the part of Corporate Debtor - whether the Respondent is liable to pay a sum of ₹ 39,08,034/- to the Corporate Debtor is required to be decided in the present Application as per the documents being placed by Learned Counsels for both the parties? - HELD THAT - There has been a gross violation in relation to adhering to the terms and conditions prima facie by the Corporate Debtor in relation to the goods to be supplied by it and as such the Applicant, being a Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor and being appointed by this Tribunal and having taken charge only from 10.10.2019 cannot be in a position to explain as to what transpired between the parties and also being ignorant of the series of e-mails being exchanged between the parties and thus from the e-mail communications being exchanged between the parties, it is seen that the Corporate Debtor has acted in violation of the terms and conditions of the purchase order and as such the Corporate Debtor is not entitled for any further payment to be made by the Respondent in this regard as claimed in the Application. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Respondent is liable to pay a sum of ?39,08,034/- to the Corporate Debtor. 2. Compliance with the terms of the contract by the Corporate Debtor. 3. Allegations of fraudulent activity and inflated bills by the Corporate Debtor. 4. Legality of the termination of the contract by the Respondent. 5. Valuation of goods supplied by the Corporate Debtor. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability to Pay ?39,08,034/-: The Applicant, the Resolution Professional of M/s. Unique Roof Private Limited, sought a directive for the Respondent to pay the balance outstanding amount of ?39,08,034/- for supplies made. The Corporate Debtor had raised invoices totaling ?98,08,034/-, out of which ?59,00,000/- was paid by the Respondent. The balance amount of ?39,08,034/- was claimed as due and reflected in the Corporate Debtor's books. 2. Compliance with Contract Terms: The Respondent argued that the Corporate Debtor failed to complete the work within the stipulated time. The original purchase order required completion by 28.03.2019, but the work was delayed. The Respondent sent multiple reminders and emails, including a significant one on 26.03.2019, where the Corporate Debtor sought an extension to 25.05.2019. Despite this, the work was not completed, leading to further extensions and eventual cancellation of the contract by the Respondent on 24.08.2019. 3. Allegations of Fraudulent Activity: The Respondent accused the Corporate Debtor of inflating bills and creating sham documents, including a "Work Completion Report" dated 14.08.2019. The Respondent claimed that the Corporate Debtor diverted funds and failed to comply with the contract terms, causing financial and reputational damage. 4. Legality of Contract Termination: The Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract due to persistent delays and non-compliance by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor contested this, stating that the termination was illegal and that the Respondent had not cooperated in keeping the site ready for delivery. The Tribunal noted the Respondent's right to cancel the contract due to the Corporate Debtor's delays and non-compliance. 5. Valuation of Goods Supplied: The Respondent's Chartered Engineer assessed the work done at ?57,48,702/-, which was less than the ?59,00,000/- already paid. The Tribunal acknowledged this valuation and noted that the proceedings were summary in nature, limiting the Tribunal's ability to take detailed evidence like a Civil Court. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that there was a gross violation of contract terms by the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant, being the Resolution Professional, could not provide a comprehensive explanation of the transactions and communications between the parties. Based on the evidence, including email exchanges, the Tribunal determined that the Corporate Debtor was not entitled to any further payment from the Respondent. Consequently, the application was dismissed without any cost.
|
