9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoice is also absent. Petition dismissed. - CP618/IB/CB/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2018 - MR B.S.V. PRAKASH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR S. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER For The Operational Creditor : Ms. S.K. Srinivasan and K. Harish, Advocates. For The Corporate Debtor : Mr R. Parthasarathy, Rahul Balaji, Madhan Babu and Vishnu Mohan, Advocates ORDER Per : B. S. V. Prakash Kumar, Member (J) It is a Company Petition, the Operational Creditor has filed u/s.9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against the Corporate Debtor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the ground that Corporate Debtor defaulted in making payment of ₹ 34,14,589 against the invoice the petitioner raised on 02.05.2016 despite Section 8 Notice served upon the corporate debtor on 19.03.2018. 2. The petitioner is engaged in providing Ground Handling Services (GHS). It entered into two Letters Of Intent (LOI) with the corporate debtor and Go Airlines (India) Limited (in short Go Airlines ) to provide Ramp Equipment Services (RES) and Ground Handling Services at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. To provide Ramp E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore it wanted to terminate the LOI with the LION Manpower by sending a month's notice, in the backdrop of this position, the corporate debtor asked the petitioner to be on standby so that it can deploy its resources in the event LION Manpower terminated its services in one month notice period. 7. Since the petitioner was asked to be ready for deploying the manpower in the event of disruption of services from the previous provider side within the notice period, the petitioner made its manpower ready from 01.04.2016. And the petitioner being asked to supply manpower in the event of disruption from the previous provider side, the petitioner says, it made manpower ready for entire one month (April 2016) notice period and kept them in waiting, because the man power being asked to be kept ready, that manpower was not deployed for any other services. For the manpower remained in waiting all through during the month of April 2016, the petitioner raised invoice on 02.05.2016 for the month of April 2016 for an amount of ₹ 34,14,589. That invoice was cleared by the corporate debtor without any demur or protest. Besides this, the corporate debtor had also deducted TDS while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d handling at IGI Airport, New Delhi for and on behalf of Go Airlines. Now therefore the present claim is connected to LOI-2, no way connected to Lol-1, thereby whatever the petitioner stated in his company petition with regard to LOI-1 is not relevant to this case, for this reason, those aspects have not been specifically denied by the corporate debtor because this claim is no way connected to LOI-1. 11. To say that the corporate debtor never agreed nor given any impression to the petitioner that the corporate debtor would make payment for the month of April, 2016, the corporate debtor referred email dated 30th March, 2016 stating that the erstwhile service provider entry passes are already been renewed with effect from 1st April, 2016, therefore the existing vendor would continue to provide services with effect from 1st April, 2016 till the expiry of the notice period, in view of this eventuality, the corporate debtor requested the petitioner to be on standby during this period of one month and deploy staff only in case the existing service provider creates any disruption during the notice period, to which, it is true that the petitioner reciprocated on the same day stating th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear to the Petitioner that they would not pay for their repairs of BFL as maintenance is in your scope and also for the loaders bill of April which was charged even without providing the loaders. The Corporate Debtor has further made it clear that the payment released to the Petitioner is the full and final. 15. Of course, there was further e-mail correspondence disputing over this aspect from either side. 16. In this backdrop, the Corporate Debtor counsel submits that though it was notified to the petitioner on September, 30th 2016 and thereafter stating that the payment mistakenly made for the month of April, 2016 was adjusted in the payment subsequently made to the operational creditor, therefore the counsel says that no debt is in existence as to the month of April 2016, that apart, this claim being disputed by the Corporate Debtor long before section 8 Notice was given on 06.12.2017, the Counsel submits this Company Petitioner is liable to be dismissed in limine. 17. On hearing the submissions of either side, the point for consideration is as to whether the corporate debtor admitted anywhere saying that the petitioner was asked to provide service for the month of Apr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
