9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principles of natural justice. The question of deficiency in the goods and/or services as claimed by the Respondent has to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in a case filed in accordance with the law and the issue cannot be adjudicated in the instant company petition - there is a dispute with regard to debt in question due to the alleged deficiency in the goods and/or services provided by the Respondent and thus it is not fit to be admitted. The present case is not a fit case to admit - petition admitted. - C.P. (IB) No. 56/BB/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2019 - SHRI RAJESWARA RAO VITTANALA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For The Petitioner : Ms Kavitha N, Advocate And Ms. Suja Surendran, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Varun Tallam, Advocate ORDER Per : Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Member. (Technical) C.P.(IB) No. 56/BB/2019 is filed by M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited ( Petitioner/Operational Creditor ) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim is disputed by the Corporate Debtor and is liable to be dismissed under Section 9 (5) (ii) (d), wherein the Corporate Debtor has issued a notice of dispute to the Operational Creditor, thereby disputing the claim of the Operational Creditor. (2) The Corporate Debtor has at length elucidated the dispute between the Parties in its reply notice dated 23.08.2018 and it is well established by the Hon ble Supreme Court that a pre-existing dispute, brought to the notice of the Operational Creditor in response to the Demand Notice, would be sufficient ground for the rejection of its Application. (3) The Corporate Debtor had long business relationship with the Operational Creditor for more than 2 years, wherein the Corporate Debtor had given business to the Operational Creditor valuing more than crores of rupees and all the payments were cleared as and when the Invoices were raised by the Operational Creditor. (4) The Corporate Debtor was facing quality issues and issues relating to after sale services provided by the Operational Creditor and the said concerns were raised by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. The Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any further products of the Operational Creditor. However, the Operational Creditor assured that the products which were ready for delivery will have no complaints either in quality or in the services thereafter and persuaded the Corporate Debtor to accept the product. (8) The Corporate Debtor was reluctant to make any advance payment against the new products and intimated that the payments would be made only when the products were delivered and tested to the Corporate Debtor s satisfaction. However, the Operational Creditor insisted on post dated cheque as per their Company s policy and assured that all the complaints will be solved on a priority and also assured that the cheque will be presented only upon resolving the previous complaints raised by the Corporate Debtor. (9) Upon believing the assurance of the Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor handed over post dated cheque, dating 45 days from the date of delivery of the products and requested the Operational Creditor not to present the cheque unless all previous complaints were resolved. The cheque was handed over as a security but not against any legal debt or liability. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Debtor suffered business loss worth ₹ 1,00,94,109.00 as certain clients of the Corporate Debtor cancelled the order and returned the goods. The Corporate Debtors further suffered loss amounting to ₹ 4,72,861.00 towards handling costs, thereby totaling to an amount of ₹ 1,25,42,485.00 as on 31.08.2018, which the Corporate Debtor is liable to recover from the Operational Creditor. 5. Heard Ms. Kavitha N., learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Varun Tallam, learned Counsel for the Respondent. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and the extant provisions of the Code. 6. The case of the Petitioner primarily relates to the default by the Corporate Debtor for a total outstanding amount of ₹ 7,03,337.80/-raised vide invoice no. 10000793 dated 17.10.2015 for goods and/or services supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondent. 7. The claim of the Petitioner is disputed by the Respondent on the grounds that the goods and services provided by the Petitioner were defective/unsatisfactory as evinced in emails dated 12.10.2015 and 13.10.2015, and that invoice dated 17.10.2015 was accepted on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain issues regarding the goods and/or services vide its reply notice dated 24.08.2018. On perusal of the said notice, we find that the Respondent had raised a conceivable dispute that would require further investigation. 12. However, the Tribunal cannot enter into enquiry with regard to the disputed questions in a case filed under the IBC, 2016, which is summary in nature and the issues to be primarily decided basing on the principles of natural justice. The question of deficiency in the goods and/or services as claimed by the Respondent has to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in a case filed in accordance with the law and the issue cannot be adjudicated in the instant company petition. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that there is a dispute with regard to debt in question due to the alleged deficiency in the goods and/or services provided by the Respondent and thus it is not fit to be admitted. 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and law as cited above, we are of the considered view that the present case is not a fit case to admit and thus the Company Petition bearing C.P. No. 56 of 2019 is hereby dismissed. However, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
