9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 - MR. B.S.V. PRAKASH KUMAR AND V. NALLASENAPATHY, JJ. For The Petitioner : Chaitanya Nikte, Adv. For The Respondent : . Rajesh Lanjekar Adv. ORDER Per B. S. V. Prakash Kumar, Member (Judicial) It is a Company Petition filed u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by the Operational Creditor namely Power House against the Corporate Debtor namely Nutri First Agro International Pvt. Ltd., stating that this Corporate Debtor availed supply of goods and labour services valuing for an amount of ₹ 55,28,864/- thereafter, this Corporate Debtor having failed to make payment for the same except a payment of ₹ 6,75,000/-, this Operational Creditor filed this Company Petition to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against this Corporate Debtor company stating that the amount claimed to be in default as on 02.07.2016 is ₹ 48,53,864/-. Brief facts of the case: 2. The Operational Creditor herein submits that since the Creditor is in the business of electrical works and also supply of labor in relation to installation of the electrical equipment to the customer whoever approached this company, this Corporate Debtor approached this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of defector liability period as retention money. Since this Corporate Debtor was in need of further material, it has issued another Purchase Order on 29.03.2016 for supply of the material for an amount of ₹ 19,25,085.20, on the said Purchase order, this Operational Creditor again supplied goods and obtained Delivery Challan on 28.07.2016 from this Corporate Debtor. On the Purchase Order made by the Corporate Debtor, this Petitioner again raised Proforma Invoice on 02.08.2016 for an amount of ₹ 19,25,085.20 towards the goods supplied by this Petitioner. Since there is a miscellaneous supply in between, they have also been annexed to this Company Petition. For the total amount towards the supply of goods and services to the Petitioner herein comes to ₹ 55,28,865/-, the Corporate Debtor made a payment of only ₹ 6,75,000/- on 01.12.2015. This payment came on 01.12.2015 because the Corporate Debtor was to make first advance towards Purchase Order made by it. He paid that money; thereafter no payment has been made by this Corporate Debtor till date, though this Petitioner issued notice u/s 271 of Companies Act 2013 on 01.02.2017. The Petitioner perhaps realizing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f setting up defense because this delivery challan has not been mentioned the value of the goods purportedly returned to the Petitioner herein, and this point has not been mentioned anywhere. The Petitioner Counsel further submits that none of the Partners of the company has signed on the challan that is annexed to the reply whereby the Petitioner submits that this is only a defense set up to frustrate the case of the Petitioner. 6. Looking at the averments and submission of the Petitioner's side, it appears that this Corporate Debtor issued Work Orders from time to time mentioning amounts and payment timelines consequent to the Work Orders, the Petitioner accordingly raised invoices and supplied goods simultaneously after getting Purchase Orders from this Corporate Debtor, not only that, this Corporate Debtor availed labor services from this Petitioner itself for electrification of the plant. Since the material for erection has been taken from this Petitioner itself, hiring labor from this Petitioner confirm that labor Work Order taken to install the electrical goods supplied by this Petitioner. The supply of labor by this Petitioner being subsequent to supply of goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing in all the challans given by this Petitioner. It has become a regular practice in these cases to come up with a statement that either goods or services are defective or of inferior in quality without any justification. 9. To prove the case of the Petitioner herein, it has filed Work Orders, Invoices, Challans, Bank Statements, and also bank certificate reflecting that debt availed by the Corporate Debtor and thereafter this Corporate Debtor defaulted in making payments, therefore, this Bench is of the view that this Petition deserve admission. 10. In respect to the challan for the first time annexed to the reply filed by this Corporate Debtor has not infused confidence in this Bench to believe that some of the goods have been returned to the Petitioner, moreover, since the Corporate Debtor himself admitted in his e-mail saying that he had only paid ₹ 6,75,000/- though according to his admission the company, according to the debtor itself, owes to pay ₹ 27,14,858/-, we have not noticed any credence to the case on belatedly filed so called challan. Since the Corporate Debtor has admitted issuing Purchase Orders and work order, thereafter the petitioner rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
