9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted claim. Section 9 (5) (ii) (d) of the Code provides that adjudicating authority shall reject the application if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. Petition dismissed. - (IB) 293 (ND)/2018 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2019 - Sh. R. Varadharajan, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) And Ms. Deepa Krishan, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner: Mr. Swapini Gupta, Ms. Neelambika Singh, Advocates. For The Respondent: Mr. Prashant Jain, Advocate ORDER 1. This is an application filed on 08.05.2018 under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'the Code') read with rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rule, 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') with a prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of Respondent Corporate Debtor. 2. The Respondent Company, against whom initiation of Corporate Insolvency resolution process has been sought for, has its registered office at House No. 63, Ground Floor, New Manglapuri, New Delhi, South West Delhi, New De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17.02.15 190 370672 19.02.15 20.04.15 43599 370673 19.02.15 20.04.15 11140.20 371018 27.02.15 28.04.15 54.40 374355 22.05.15 21.07.15 6478 374355 22.05.15 21.07.15 5154.80 377423 07.08.15 06.10.15 14249.20 377428 07.08.15 06.10.15 859.70 381198 10.11.15 09.01.16 1960 381236 11.11.15 10.01.16 30777 385712 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The operational creditor has further contended that the amount in question is an admitted liability. Till date various representations and reminders have been sent by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor asking for the release of the amount EUR 229,020.48 (Euro Two Hundred and Twenty Nine Thousand Twenty and Forty Eight Cents) i.e. INR (INR One crore, Eighty Three Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Nine Rupees and Forty Eight Paisa). However, the Corporate Debtor has continued to be in default of its obligations to make the payment under the abovementioned invoices. 10.Learned counsel for the Corporate Debtor has opposed the admission of the application and has advanced the following arguments:- i. Disputes regarding amount Claimed to be in Default The Corporate debtor has submitted that the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor incorporated SEITZ India in order to expand the business of the Operational Creditor in India. It was agreed between the parties that the Corporate Debtor will transfer its business to SEITZ India for a consideration of ₹ 6 Crores. The disputes arose between the parties as the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lodged with the Police Authorities on 06.02.2018. These are apart from the Civil Suit filed by the Operational Creditor against Seitz India and Ors before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, there are multiple proceedings filed by both parties before various fora and the amount claimed to be in default ought not to be separately decided summarily by this Hontble Tribunal as the same are part of disputes pending adjudication before various authorities. Other objections by the Corporate Debtor: a. Amount claimed barred by Limitation: It may be noted that in view of understanding between parties, the amount claimed in the present Application was never claimed. Any amount claimed prior to February 2015 is barred. It is denied that there is any running account maintained between parties. The Operational Creditor has failed to place on record any document to substantiate the same. b. The exchange rate claimed is incorrect as the exchange rate has been incorrectly calculated. The exchange rate has been taken based on the convenience of Operational Creditor. Without admitting, even if the amount is payable the exchange rate should have been on the date wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation. It is reiterated that existence of dispute in the present case cannot be ruled out. 16. As discussed above the respondent has raised dispute with sufficient particulars and the same is evident from the correspondence by many of emails exchanged between the parties from 10.04.2015 to 04.01.2018. Although emails mostly show discussion regarding the amount payable and dispute regarding management, the emails dated 27.04.2017 and 04.11.2018 clearly shows that there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties. Thus, it appears that there is an existence of prior dispute though civil suit and police complaints have been filed after the receiving of the demand notice. 17. It is also seen that both the Operational creditor and Corporate Debtor are closely linked not only in relation to these 2 companies but also several other entities as well. The director of the operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor have served other 3 entities that have been formed between them and they qualify to be treated as related Parties . 18.Hence, the amount of claim raised by the applicant clearly falls within the ambit of disputed claim. Section 9 (5) (ii) ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
