9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submitted by the Corporate Debtor. None is on record to substantiate that the Operational Creditor was actually engaged for their services. Further the terms of the Bank sanctioning the limit did not meet or suit the requirements of the Corporate Debtor, nor were these availed by them. In the absence of clear-cut liability which remains unliquidated despite demands, resolution of an ongoing company in operation cannot be initiated on mere averments - petition dismissed. - IB-989 (ND) 2019 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2019 - Smt. Ina Malhotra, Judicial Member And V.K. Subburaj, Technical Member Gaurav Bal, Adv. for the Petitioner. Manu Bakshi, Adv. for the Respondent. ORDER Smt. Ina Malhotra, This petition has been f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emit this amount constraining the Operational Creditor to issue a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It is submitted by the Operational Creditor that the said notice was duly replied to by the Corporate Debtor through its lawyers raising the specious plea that no services were availed, neither was any request made by them to procure sanction of loans. 5. On putting in appearance, the Corporate Debtor has filed its reply and have denied engaging the services of the Operational Creditor. The alleged sanction limit from the Bank was also not availed. It is also submitted that there was no agreement to pay service charge @ 1% of the sanctioned amount. They had only received some intimation in respect of prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uding offer of any collateral security/guarantee. The only correspondence relied upon is the communication of the sanction letter enlisting the terms and conditions. The Corporate Debtor responded that they did not understand the terms . of sanction and the proposal procured did not meet their requirements. 7. Given the defence raised, we find that a plausible dispute had been raised in respect of the outstanding amount claimed. There is no letter of engagement agreeing to pay service charge @ 1% + GST. No copy of the application form submitted on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, or document annexed supporting that the Corporate Debtor was relying on the Operational Creditor for procuring the loan for and on their behalf. The sanction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
