9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000/-. The registered office of the respondent is at 709, Sector 23, Village Carterpuri, Gurgaon-122001. Therefore, the matter falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 2. It is stated in the petition that the respondent purchased pharmaceutical products on a regular basis from time to time. It is stated in Part IV of Form 5 that the total amount of goods purchased by the respondent is Rs.120502 and that the respondent at the relevant point of time received the goods stated in the respective invoice and never raised any dispute regarding the quality/quantity of the products till date. Out of the amount of Rs.120502/-, an amount of Rs.100118/- is stated to remain outstanding due and payable by the respondent. It is further stated that as per commercial terms and agreement between the parties, the respondent is liable to pay interest on the outstanding amount @24% and accordingly, interest of Rs.13179.93 accrued on the aforesaid outstanding amount as on 31.07.2017. It is stated that the petitioner served demand notice as per Form 3 of the Rules upon the respondent on 01.08.2017 which was served on the respondent by speed post on 09.08.2017. Copy of the postal re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 313/- only is outstanding on account of goods purchased and that for reasons best known to the petitioner, they have furnished the ledger account w.e.f. from 01.04.2016 and the opening balance as per the petitioner as on 01.04.2016 is Rs.3,10,827/- (Dr.), whereas as per the audited ledger account maintained by the respondent, the opening balance is Rs.2,65,197/- which is a difference of Rs.45,630/-. It is stated that raw material in the form of packaging and containers of the value of Rs.4.5 lacs approximately is admittedly lying in the premises and in the custody of the petitioner and such amount more than covers the outstanding amount due to the petitioner of Rs.45313/-. It is stated that prior to initiation of the instant proceedings, the petitioner through their advocate had sent a demand notice dated 08.06.2017 raising a demand of Rs.100118/- and that the respondent had replied indicating that the outstanding liability was of Rs.40,000/- but the same was not liable to be paid on account of illegal detention of goods (bottles and filling materials) worth Rs.4.5 to Rs.5.0 lacs. It is stated that an envelope dated 09.08.2017 was received from the petitioner which contained blank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever returned and that the total amount of goods purchased by the respondent under the aforesaid invoices is Rs.120502/- and an amount of Rs.100118 remains outstanding due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner till date (Part IV of Form 5). The details of the invoices have been furnished in Annexure-B (colly) and includes two journal vouchers dated 15.12.2016 for Rs.2000/- and Rs.30000/-. The amounts are stated to be in respect of product approval and would not therefore, represent goods purchased by the respondent as claimed in Part IV of Form No.5. The petition does not contain any further details of the product approval. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the entries are unilateral, without any basis or justification since no new product has been manufactured by the petitioner for the respondent requiring any new licence or approval and no proof regarding payment by the petitioner to any competent authority has been furnished. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not rebutted the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent. In these circumstances, the reduction of the amount of Rs.32,000/- from the principal amount claimed of Rs.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1301 dated 25.04.2018) by which the petitioner was informed that the ledger balance of Rs.1,62,869 has been cleared. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not rebutted the contentions and details furnished by the respondent. The respondent's contention is therefore, that only purchases made after 13.01.2017 totalling to Rs.45,313/- remain to be paid. As discussed above, the corporate insolvency process is only triggered where the minimum amount of default is Rs.1.00 lac. Therefore, in the present case, since the default is of less than Rs.1.00 lac the petition is not maintainable. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that reply to the demand notice in Form 3 of the Rules served by speed post on 09.08.2017 was not received within the period of ten days thereof and therefore, the provisions of Section 9 of the Code become operational. It is also argued that dispute is defined in Section 5 (6) of the Code to include a suit or arbitration proceedings and in the present case, there is no claim of any suit or arbitration proceedings and therefore, respondent's contention cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
