9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is worth to place on record that the Operational Creditor had knowledge of this Dispute. Hence, my conscientious view is that this Petition/Application is not fit for commencement of CIRP. If the remedy in any other law is available to the Operational Creditor the same can be availed, however, as far as the Insolvency Code is concerned the scope of admission of a claim is limited one. Any observation, legal or factual, shall not prejudiced the rights of the Operational Creditor, if to be exercised under any other Law. Application dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce for Debtor. 6. Vide the said appointment letter it was agreed that the Debtor will pay and discharge the Operational Creditor with Professional fees of 1.5 %, plus service tax as applicable, of the total amount that Operational Creditor would procure for Debtor. 7. As per the statements of the Operational Creditor, due to his efforts the Debtor had received a sanction letter for financial support aggregating ₹ 75,00,000/- from the Edelweiss. 8. Pursuant to the same the Operational Creditor has raised an Invoice bearing no. SCSPL/002:16-17 dated 25.04.2016 for an amount of ₹ 1,29,37,500/- being the Professional Fees as agreed. 9. Thereafter the Operational Creditor has time and again followed-up for the payment of the out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he earlier name of the Operational Creditor i.e. M/s. Substantia Capital Services Private Limited. However, subsequently it was withdrawn by the Operational Creditor. 15. Thereafter after issuance of fresh Demand Notice dated 12.06.2017 the Operational Creditor has filed this Petition/Application. It is stated that the said notice has been duly received by the Debtor and on 23.06.2017 the Debtor has replied to the same. However, in the reply the Debtor has sought to raise a false dispute pertains to claimed amount. Submissions by the Debtor : 16. The Learned Advocate for the Debtor has vehemently argued that despite the raising of 'notice of dispute' the Operational Creditor has filed the Petition/Application U/s. 9 of the Code h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Operational Creditor itself. In light of this argument the Learned Advocate has pleaded that since in the said order there is no liberty to the Operational Creditor to file a fresh proceedings this Petition/ Application does not survive. 21. It is also pleaded that, the Operational Creditor has never appeared in the said matter before Court Room No. 1 despite of the reminders sent by the Debtor. It is also pleaded that the Demand Notice dated 12.06.2017 is issued by the Operational Creditor despite the earlier Petition/Application was pending for adjudication. In light of this fact the Demand Notice of 12.06.2017 is null and void and therefore also this Petition/Application be Dismissed with costs. Findings : 22. I have gone throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same has not survives in the eyes of Law. And since the Demand Notice which is an essential criterion for the filing of Petition/Application U/s. 9 is bad in Law therefore this Petition/Application deserves Rejection not only on this ground but also on the ground of the 'existence of Dispute'. 27. Before coming to the final conclusion it is worth to place reliance on the decision cited by the Learned Advocate of the Debtor decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Private Limited [(2017) 4 CompLJ 255 (SC)] dated 21.09.2017 which is reproduced as follows : "40. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
