9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner against the sale invoice. Argument of the Petitioner that it is not concerned with any alleged issues with regard to the quality of goods and all such issues, if exists, are between Glints and the Corporate Debtor and ought to be resolved between them is not tenable. We are of the opinion that there exists a dispute with regard to the alleged unpaid operational debt which is supported by documents and the operational creditor had notice of the same before the date of the Demand Notice. We hereby reject this petition as under section 9(5)(2)(d). - CP 577/I&B/NCLT/MAH/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-1-2019 - Shri V.P. Singh, Member (Judicial) And Shri Ravikumar Duraisamy, Member (Technical) For The Petitioner : Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate, Ms. Kirtida Chandarana, Advocate, Ms. Sonali Mehta, Advocate i/b Mahernosh Humranwala For The Respondent : Mr. Atul Singh, Advocate a/w Mr. Salkit Kumar, Advocate i/b ANP Partners ORDER 1. It is a Petition filed u/s 9 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) filed by Credit Suisse AG, Operational Creditor or Petitioner, against Crest Steel Power Private Limited (CSPPL), Corporate Debtor, to initiate Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facsimile message (fax) to the Corporate Debtor requesting to confirm if they have made the payment. The Petitioner stated that it did not receive any reply to any of its communications sent to the Corporate Debtor. Eventually, on 20.06.2014 the Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Corporate Debtor demanding payment of the due amount under the invoice. 7. The Corporate Debtor replied to the legal notice of the Petitioner stating that they were not aware of the fact that the goods were financed by the Petitioner or that the invoices were due on 03.06.2014. The Corporate Debtor has stated: As there were quality issue in the material supplied, the payments from our customer will get delayed by 2 to 3 months, which we have already informed to Glints Global in the past. So we will try settle this bill on/or before 31/08/2014. In the mean time if any realisation is received from the customers, it will be remitted to you. As explained above in the current situation, we need to have at least 2 months from now for payment of the liability fallen due on 03/06/2014 for amount of $5,039,760/- and we will ensure that payment is made by 31/08/2014. 8. In reply to the let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debtor s invoice. However, since no further payments were made as per the settlement agreement and time was essence of the settlement, the Petitioner has withdrawn the settlement terms and the original amounts are immediately due and payable. 15. The Petitioner sent a Demand Notice dated 20.12.2017 in form-3 along with from-4 to the Corporate Debtor demanding $1,431,388.29/- inclusive of principal and interest amount. The acknowledgment shows that the notice was received by the Corporate Debtor on 26.12.2017. 16. The Corporate Debtor sent a reply date 04.01.2018 to the Demand Notice disputing the amount claimed on account of the Petitioner not acknowledging the 10% advance paid by the Petitioner and the agreed deduction of $25/MT as the compensation in lieu of the loss suffered due to poor quality of the goods supplied. 17. The Corporate Debtor in its Affidavit in Reply has stated that the petition should not be admitted because it has disputed both the quantum as well as right of the Petitioner to claim the amount. The dispute regarding the quantum is in lieu of firstly, the refusal of the Petitioner to deduct 10% advance paid to the Glints. Secondly, the Petitioner ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Contract and any dispute regarding the quality of the goods is not maintainable. 22. It is also contended that the Petitioner, being the assignee of Glints, is not concerned with any alleged issues with regard to the quality of goods and all such issues, if exists, are between Glints and the Corporate Debtor and ought to be resolved between them. 23. We have heard the arguments of the Advocates appearing for both the sides and perused the documents submitted. 24. The Petitioner has filed this petition as Operational Creditor under section 9 of IBC. As per section 5 (20) of IBC the definition of Operational Creditor includes any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned. Under the Assignment of Claims Agreement dated 12.03.2013 Glints has assigned all its present and future claims to the Petitioner including the present relevant invoice dated 03.03.2013. 25. As per IBC, the Petitioner sent Demand Notice along with the invoice under section 8 of IBC dated 20.12.2017 in form-3 along with from-4 to the Corporate Debtor demanding $1,431,388.29/- inclusive of principal and interest amount. The acknowledgment receipt shows that the notice was duly received by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
