9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aborate investigation. In the facts it is reiterated that existence of genuine dispute in the present case cannot be ruled out. Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code provides that adjudicating authority shall reject the application if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. This petition fails and the same is rejected. - Company Petition No. (IB)-421(PB)/2017 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2018 - MR. M. M. KUMAR AND MR. S. K. MOHAPATRA, JJ. For The Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Upadhyay, Advocate And Mr. Harshit Sanwai, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. U. K. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abdhesh Chaudhary, Advocate, Mr. Maneesh Dubey, Advocate And Mr. Himanshu Vij, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was engaged by the respondent for providing transport services to the crew members of the respondent company. In terms of the agreement dated 09-07-2012 the applicant duly provided the transport services from July, 2012 to 26th July, 2015, which was inclusive of the one-year extension given by the respondent company. Further it is submitted that the bills served by the applicant to respondent were duly acknowledged and received by the representatives of the respondent company. Subsequently the applicant approached the respondent several times even wrote several emails for the clearance of the outstanding dues. However, payment was not made by the respondent. Copies of agreement dated 09-07-2012 and the extension agreement dated 14-07-2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21-07-2017 no amount has been received in the account of the applicant from the respondent company. 10. Respondent has filed its reply mainly with the contention that a dispute exists between the parties from way back in July, 2015 and that the respondent has made excess payments and nothing more is due and payable to the applicant. It is submitted that serious dispute relating to the falsification and tampering of invoices, forged parking receipts etc. including wrong billing and deficiency in services are apparent from record, which lead to auditing/checking of the invoices and raising of counter debit notes. 11. Further it is contended that on receipt of complaint that the applicant was involved in fraudulent activity by raising f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined by an external auditor has been mentioned in the reply as follows: (a) Relating to the bogus parking receipts for an amount of ₹ 76.90 Lakhs; (b) Actual KM compared with Invoices KM for an amount of ₹ 11.17 Lakhs; (c) Odometer reading Actual Distance compared with Invoices KM for an amount of ₹ 86.23 Lakhs; (d) Restoring/Attendance Data compared with Log sheet data for an amount of ₹ 0.46 Lakhs; (e) Service Level Agreement non-compliance for an amount of ₹ 2.85 Lakhs. 15. It is accordingly contended that the total established impact of loses accrued to the respondent company needs to be adjusted from the alleged claimed debt. In addition it is contended that the inappropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te relating to the falsification and tampering of invoices, forged parking receipts etc. including wrong billing and deficiency in services were found way back in 2015, which lead to auditing/checking of the invoices and raising of counter debit notes. 20. The applicant has not disputed the fact of conduct of internal audit by respondent. There is also no denial of convening of meeting of parties on 25-05-15 pursuant to the report of auditor dated 11-05-2015. Minutes of the meeting between applicant and respondent dated 25th May, 2015 has been placed on record. On the same day vide E-mail dated 25th May, 2015 applicant itself acknowledged some discrepancies found in the report and admitted about raising inappropriate parking invoices and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usible contention which required further investigation and that the 'dispute' is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application. (Emphasis Given). 23. In the factual background it is seen that there has been no admission of operational ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
