9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved by the order dated June 14, 2019-(Suman Chadha v. Lifestyle Fitness P. Ltd. [2020] 9 Comp Cas-OL 31 (NCLT)) whereby the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench-III, New Delhi admitted the application filed by respondent No. 1 (operational creditor). 2. Respondent No. 1 filed application before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench-III, New Delhi under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short the "IBC") seeking triggering corporate insolvency resolution process (in short the "CIRP") against the corporate debtor, i. e., M/s. Lifestyle Fitness P. Ltd., on the ground that the corporate debtor defaulted payment of dues. 3. Learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments, we are of the view that the bone of contention is with regard to alleged payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in cash to Mr. Ritesh Vijhani said to be authorized representative of the first respondent (operational creditor) by the appellant for the corporate debtor herein. It is admitted that the appellant issued cheques in the name of the first respondent dated April 30, 2017, June 30, 2017 and July 31, 2017. However, the stand of the first respondent (operational creditor) is that those cheques have been dishonoured with the remarks "funds insufficient". Respondent No. 1 issued notice dated October 15, 2018 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the appellant. Having not received the dues from the appellant, the first resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what is received. We are also of the view that even if it is treated as amount to be received on behalf of Suman Chadha the first respondent herein, but person who actually received the amount and signed beneath could not be identified. The appellant wants us to compare signatures in this regard but in the summary jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority it may not be possible. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant stressed upon this Tribunal on the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in "cash" to one Shri Ritesh Vijhani and contended that the said Shri Ritesh Vijhani was an authorized representative of the operational creditor. Neither the Adjudicating Authority nor this Appellate Tribunal will go into the veracity and authenticity of such document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the first respondent herein cannot be recognized. 10. We are of the view that the said dispute is not a bona fide dispute and therefore the Adjudicating Authority has rightly admitted the application. Apart from above, even if Rs. 25 lakhs is held to be paid was to be accepted, admittedly corporate debtor held back Rs. 1 lakh. If the default is Rs. 1 lakh, the insolvency can be triggered against the corporate debtor as per section 4 of the IBC. The appellant in grounds of appeal has stated that the balance of Rs. 1 lakh was withheld by the appellant. Thus the default is admitted. 11. In view of the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority. The appeal stands dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
