9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s.Aerospace Processing India Private Limited ( Respondent/Corporate Debtor ) on the ground that it has committed default for a total outstanding amount of ₹ 9,61,265/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) including interest claimed @ 24% on unpaid amount calculated till 31.03.2018 from due date of payment. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the Company Petition, are as follows: (i) M/s. Anant Pre-Engineered Structures ( Petitioner/Operational Creditor ) is a Proprietary concern having GST Registration Number 29ACSPG7952P1ZH and having its office at Plot No. 442, Snehalata , Godsewadi, Opp. Air Force Ground, Mandoli Road, Tilakwadi, Belgaum-590006. (ii) M/s. Aerospace Processing India Private Limited ( Respondent/Corporate Debtor ) is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 02.07.2007 under the Companies Act, 1956 having CIN: U35303KA2007PTC043311 and having its registered office at Plot No. 437/A, Hattargi Village, Hukkeri Taulk, Dist.-Belgaum, Karnataka-591243. The Authorised Share Capital of the Company is ₹ 16,90,00,000/- and Paid-up Share Capital of the Company is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that, as per their books of accounts, an amount of ₹ 4,70,400/- is payable to the Petitioner herein, vide their letter dated 11.04.2016. 3. The Company Petition was opposed by the Respondent by filing Statement of Objections dated 30.01.2019, by inter alia contending as follows: (i) The Application filed by Operational Creditor deserves to be dismissed at threshold as not maintainable as there is existence of real dispute with regard to services/supplies among Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. Further, the claim made by Operational Creditor is hopelessly barred by time and there is genuine dispute in respect of installation of external sheet (profile sheets) on the western side of the building of Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor specifically submits that the Operational Creditor has received the reply notice of dispute on 26.06.2018 and Operational Creditor has complete knowledge of the existence of genuine real dispute and did not approach this Tribunal with clean hands and on this ground alone the application of Operational Creditor deserves to be rejected. (ii) It is stated that the claim of the Operational Creditor/Applicant is not valid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Creditor. Further, on 30.10.2015 Corporate Debtor has informed Operational Creditor through mail and terminated the Purchase Order and informed Operational Creditor that the debit note rectification of the work from the third party will be raised. Hence, Corporate Debtor was forced to get the work performed by a third party to rectify external sheet/profile sheet of western side of the building and complete the project and has incurred huge loss around ₹ 4,00,000/-. In spite of repeated mails, communications and opportunity provided by Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditors have miserably failed to complete the work, hence there is no question of any payment to Operational Creditor. (v) It is further stated that despite of the fact that the Corporate Debtor sent a reply cum dispute notice on 21.06.2018 via registered post acknowledgement and which was delivered to the Applicant on 26.06.2018, in reply to demand notice sent by the Applicant, Applicant in the present Petition submitted an Affidavit that I state that in response to the said notices/invoices demanding payment, the Corporate Debtor has given no notice whatsoever relating to a dispute in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a recovery mechanism, which is against the intent of the Code. The main objective of the Code is to streamline the insolvency process but not debt recovery. The Operational Creditor s objective is not in conformity with the intention of the legislature. 4. Heard Ms. Asmita Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Hari Babu Thota, learned PCS for the Respondent and Shri Vikram. S. Annappa, Director of the Respondent Company. We have carefully-perused the pleadings of the parties and the extant provisions of the Code. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while pointing out various contentions raised in the Company Petition and also in the Synopsis, as briefly stated supra, submits that the Petition is filed in accordance with law and the debt and default is admitted by the Corporate Debtor and no dispute raised by them and thus it is fit case to admit it. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, while pointing out various contentions raised in the Statement of Objections, has further submitted that there is serious dispute raised by them in respect of quality of work and delay in execution and there is serious lapse on the part of Petitioner in executing the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22-01-15 21-02-15 31-03-18 1134 1164 Statement of Total Dues/Unpaid Amount of Aerospace Processing India Pvt. Ltd. Sr. No. Due date of Payment Particulars Inv. No. Inv. Amount Amt. Received Receivable Due Days Credit Period in days Over due Days Int. @ 24%/ year 1 Sales OP (40,524) - (40,524) - 2 30-01-15 Sales 54 120,000 - 79,476 1186 30 1156 60,410 3 30-01-15 Sales 55 240,000 235,200 4,800 1186 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed emails asking the Petitioner to complete the work by a specified time and handover the premises. It is also stated that, the Purchase Order/work contract in question was terminated on 30.10.2015 and informed by Mr. Vikram of Respondent Company to Mr. Ravindra (for Anant Pre-Engineered-Petitioner herein) as the Petitioner failed to execute the work as per the terms of the contract. Therefore, the Respondent suffered losses due to the lapse on the part of the Petitioner and thus they claimed damages and expenses for an amount of ₹ 4,00,000/- for getting the work executed through third party. Therefore, the Petitioner failed to establish the debt and default by substantiating with documentary evidence. On the other hand, the Respondent has raised a plausible dispute about the claimed amount in their reply dated 21.06.2018. Moreover, the Petitioner has received part payment for the bills claimed and the instant Petition is also tiled to recover the alleged disputed outstanding amount and that too after a lapse of more than three years when the alleged outstanding amount was due as stated supra. Hence, the amount claimed is not only in dispute and is also barred by laches and l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
