9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not ripe to be taken up under sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Moreover the petitioner has even failed to comply with the National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore Bench order dated July 20, 2018 vide which the Tribunal allowed I. A. No. 187 of 2018 granting prayer for paper publication. The petitioner failed to substantiate the impugned amount with proper evidence. The efforts made by the petitioner to serve the notice failed, even though the Tribunal ordered to serve notice to the respondent. Moreover the claim itself is not proved and the prima facia barred by the law of limitation. This is not a fit case to be admitted and is liable to be rejected - petition dismissed. - C. P. No. 223 of 2016 (T. P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submission of the notice to the respondent. But counsel for the petitioner mentioned that the notice could not be delivered, similarly when this Bench has sent notice, the same was also came unserved with a note that left . 3. The case was listed from time to time and on July 20, 2018 the Tribunal allowed I. A. No. 187 of 2018 by granting the permission to the petitioner to carry out the paper publication as prayed for in the Indian Express English daily newspaper and in Vijaya Vani Kannada daily newspaper. 4. However the petitioner failed to carry out the paper publication, and the petitioner has failed to serve the notice personally when it was directed so on December 13, 2018. The petitioner has claimed that it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorised share capital is ₹ 2,00,00,000 and paid-up share capital ₹ 1,83,48,020. The total amount of debt is ₹ 81,94,542. (2) The petitioner submitted that the business was started with the letter of intent. The petitioner-company raised invoices totalling to an amount of ₹ 1,06,32,704 out of which the respondent has released part payment of ₹ 81,94,542. The petitioner-company submits that the respondent has time and again admitted its liability to pay the outstanding dues of the petitioner and also admitted that it is facing financial crunch and that it was working towards making alternative arrangements. (3) The amount claimed in default is ₹ 81,94,542. 7. The petitioner filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter of intent dated August 24, 2012 without any proof for supply of manpower and billing is varying with heading facility management changes . 9. There are two problems basically involved in the petition one so far the petitioner has not been in a position to serve the statutory notice even under the old Act, i. e., the Companies Act, 1956 nor they have been able to served the demand notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to the respondent. They are unable even to locate the address and serve it to the directors. Even if we assume while CIRP process initiated, interim professional will not in position to find the location where the company is situated and where is the office of the firm. Hence no purpose will be serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. The above facts and circumstances show that the petitioner failed to substantiate the impugned amount with proper evidence. The efforts made by the petitioner to serve the notice failed, even though the Tribunal ordered to serve notice to the respondent. Moreover the claim itself is not proved and the prima facia barred by the law of limitation. Further it is seen that the instant company petition is filed to recover the impugned outstanding amount of the corporate debtor rather than to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process. It is settle position of law that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot substitute the recovery proceedings as held by the Supreme Court decision in Mobilox Innovations P. Ltd. v. Kirusa Softw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
