9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 5(6)(a) of the Code. Petition dismissed. - C.P. (IB)-843/MB/2019 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2019 - Mr Bhaskara Pantula Mohan, Member (Judicial) And Mr V. Nallasenapathy, Member (Technical) For The Petitioner : Mr Naushar Kohli i/b Ashish Singh For The Respondent : Mr. Rashmin Khandehar a/w Mr. MA Kamdar i/b Kanga and Co. ORDER 1. This Company Petition is filed by Steel India (hereinafter called Petitioner ) against Theme Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called Corporate Debtor ) seeking to set in motion the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor alleging that Corporate Debtor committed default in mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Theme Developers Private Ltd. S1/101/2015- 16 3,16,060.00 30.07.2015 4. Theme Developers Private Ltd. S1/102/2015-16 2,19,805.00 30.07.2015 TOTAL 12,47,157 3. Furthermore, the Petitioner goes on to make his case by drawing our attention to Email Communications between him and the Corporate Debtor and Ledger (Exhibit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the present Petition is not maintainable in law or in fact. Further, the Corporate Debtor contends that the Petitioner has not come to court with clean hands and has not set out the true and correct facts in the matter. Furthermore, it is also submitted by the Corporate Debtor that the present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner to extort money from the Respondent and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this Application. 8. The Corporate Debtor contends that he procured Steel bards from the Petitioner in the year 2015-16 to the tune of ₹ 48,42,784/-. He also points out that the total outstanding of ₹ 48, 42,784/- has already been paid by him to the Petitioner before filing of the Petition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was incorrect. Thereafter, principal outstanding amount of ₹ 13, 35.952/- was also cleared by the Corporate Debtor vide RTGS. 12.The Corporate Debtor claims to have never agreed to pay interest to the Petitioner. The Corporate Debtor further submits that, before receiving the Second Demand Notice dated 15.01.2019, he had already raised a dispute with regards to the interest claimed by the Petitioner vide his letter dated 9.01.2019. Therefore, he submits that since there is existence of a dispute between the parties. 13.It is worth to mention the Written Submissions of the Corporate Debtor, wherein he has denied the claims and sought dismissal of the Petition on the following grounds: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y when there is a dispute as to the amount of debt. Contentions raised by Petitioner vide Rejoinder and W.S. 14.The Petitioner in his Rejoinder has pointed out that the fact that TDS has been deducted on the interest component is a proof of debt. Further, they have relied on the Corporate Debtor s balance sheet for the year 2015-16, annexed by him in his Reply, according to which interest of delayed payment has been mentioned the Corporate Debtor s Audited Financial Statements. Findings 15.We have carefully gone through the pleadings on record and pursued the submissions made by the counsels for both the sides. On careful perusal of the documents it is noticed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31 of the Reply shows that the Corporate Debtor factored interest on delayed payment. However, an ordinary scanning of the Pg. 221, there is an item showing as interest on delayed payment to the extent of ₹ 2,90,459/- but that cannot be relatable to interest claim of the Petitioner which is to the extent of ₹ 22,64,054/- for 2015-2018. It is also to be noted that the interest on delayed payment for the year ending 31.03.2015 was shown as Nil. Hence, this contention of the Petitioner also fails. 20.The above discussion clearly reveals that the dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor that they are not liable to pay interest as claimed by the Petitioner, which was categorically informed to the petitioner when rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
