9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove purchase order. In view of this, the petitioner at this juncture cannot claim that he is no way concerned with the acceptance or otherwise of the installed equipment in the premises of BSNL. Tribunal further observes that by making the supply to the Respondent, the Petitioner Company has given implied consent to the counter offer made by the respondent. In this case, neither the Petitioner nor the respondent has obtained the Product Acceptance of BSNL and hence has not fulfilled the condition required. Thus the petition filed by the Operational Creditor under section 9 Rule 6 of the IBC, 2016 at this point of time is premature and is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal further clarifies that the right of the operational creditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 018. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent has raised certain purchase order on the operational creditor for certain goods and services. The products were duly delivered by the Operational Creditor on demand by the Respondent. The invoices act as documents under which the Operational Debt has become due. Seven invoices amounting to Rs. US$ 16,000 were issued by the Operational Creditor which in total amounts to US$ 1,12,000/- including interest of 18% P. A. The amount in default is US$ 2,48,080/- including interest @ 18% till date which is equivalent to ₹ 1,58,77,120/- (by taking an average rate of ₹ 64 for 1 dollar). The Respondent failed to pay the amount demanded by the Operational Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Respondent submitted that they were awarded a project by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for the supply installation commissioning and maintenance support of Wave 2 certified WiMax equipment. Accordingly the Respondent Company approached the petitioner for supply of certain equipment which were in turn to be supplied to BSNL at various circles. Originally the tender was entered into between the Respondent and one M/s. Agilent Technologies India Limited which was subsequently taken over by the petitioner. But the petitioner has not fulf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is not barred by limitation as the demand notice was issued on 25.07.2017 and Section 238 of the I B Code, 2016 is having an overriding effect over all other laws in force, therefore, the law of limitation does not have application to the proceedings under the I B Code. The Respondent has not raised any dispute till issuance of demand notice dated 25.07.2017 and even in the winding up petition which was pending before the High Court. In view of the above submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for admitting the petition and initiate corporate insolvency resolution process against the respondent. 8. Heard. Perused the pleadings and documents submitted by both the parties. 9. The tribunal observes that the offer fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
