9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorporated on 15.02.2012, under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with CIN No. U74210DL2012PTC231548, having its registered office at N- 23, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049, inter alia, engaged in the business of providing interior design consultancy services. 3. The Respondent, namely M/s Kayo Enterprises Private Limited, is a company incorporated on 03.10.2017 under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 with CIN No. U55204DL2017PTC324376, having its registered office at K-12, Block K, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016. The Authorised Share Capital of the respondent company is Rs. 1,00,000/-and Paid Up Share Capital of the company is Rs. 1,00,000/-as per Master Data of the company. 4. It is the case of the applicant, that a design agreement was entered into between Corporate Debtor and Applicant for engaging Petitioner for Interior Design Consultancy for one of the planned projects of Corporate Debtor with the name of "Esquire" at Samrat Hotel, New Delhi. The Agreement covered the scope of services which were divided into five stages. It was mutually agreed between the parties that supervision provided by the Applicant beyond six months will be charged @ Rs. 10,000 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire payment of unpaid debt to the tune of Rs. 9,14,499/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Nine) plus interest @ 24% per annum i.e., Rs. 74,321/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred Twenty One) plus site visit reimbursement @ Rs. 10,000/- per visit i.e., Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Thousand), the total amount of debt Rs. 12,69,420/-(Rupees Twelvce Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twenty), within 10 days from receipt of the notice, failing which the Applicant shall initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution process against the Respondent. 7. The Applicant has annexed postal receipt, along with the tracking report, showing the delivery of the said demand notice at the registered office of the Corporate Debtor. 8. After the delivery of demand notice sent under section 8 of the Code, the Respondent has not filed its reply to the said notice, nor raised any dispute by way of notice any other. As no payment was coming, hence this application, seeking to unfold the process of CIRP. 9. The Applicant has stated that total debt due and payable is Rs. 12,69,420/- (Rupees Twelvce Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twenty). The date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporate Debtor had any bonafide dispute or issue with respect to the subject matter of the application, the demand notice was issued by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor, where these disputes should have been filed instead of disputing the bonafide claim of the Applicant on such untenable and baseless grounds at such belated stage. 14. The Operational Creditor further states that, on perusal of the design agreement, it can be observed that the agreement bears signatures of the authorized representatives of both the Corporate Debtor as well as Operational Creditor. It becomes imperative to understand that the agreement was only addressed to Mr. Gaurav Marya, who is employed with the Corporate Debtor and the agreement bears the signature of Ms. Reejakshi Singh who is the creative head of the project "Esquire Club" of the Corporate Debtor (the same can be seen in the email dated 14.09.2019) and who has also signed the agreement on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. It is pertinent to mention that the association of Ms. Reejakshi Singh is also clearly evident from the various reminder email correspondences exchanged between her on behalf of the Operational Creditor, wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he defense is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application." In the present case, there is no such dispute as pre-existing, the dispute which was being claimed to be pre-existing by the corporate debtor did not survive. 19. The applicant has attached the copy of Bank statements in compliance of the requirement of section 9(3)(c) of the IBC 2016. 20. In view of above, we are satisfied that the present application is complete and the Operational Creditor is entitled to claim its dues, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt beyond doubt, and fulfillment of requirements under section 9(5) of the Code. Hence, the present application is admitted. 21. The registered office of respondent is situated in New Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application. 22. The Applicant has not proposed the name of any Interim Resolution Professional. In view of the same, this Bench appoints the Mr. Chander Shekhar, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
