9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cheques for ₹ 3 lakhs to be deposited on March 31, 2018. The dispute must be bona fide dispute as held by the hon'ble apex court and this Tribunal in various judgments. The payment of huge cash, which is impermissible, that too, to a third party and trying to adjust the payments due to the operational creditor, i. e., the first respondent herein cannot be recognized. The said dispute is not a bona fide dispute and therefore the Adjudicating Authority has rightly admitted the application. Apart from above, even if ₹ 25 lakhs is held to be paid was to be accepted, admittedly corporate debtor held back ₹ 1 lakh. If the default is ₹ 1 lakh, the insolvency can be triggered against the corporate debtor as per sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of dues. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant runs and operates fitness centre and had availed counselling and other professional services in the year 2016-17 from the first respondent against a consideration of ₹ 35,00,000. It is stated that the appellant had issued various cheques from time to time in the year 2017-18 towards the discharge of the amount due and payable to the first respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the appellant failed to pay the dues and issued demand notice dated December 3, 2018 demanding an amount of ₹ 26,85,907 and interest thereon and the total due is ₹ 26,95,907. The appellant failed to pay and clear the dues. Hence the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. Having not received the dues from the appellant, the first respondent got issued demand notice dated December 3, 2018 under section 8(1) of the IBC claiming an amount of ₹ 26,85,907 taking a stand that the appellant failed to clear the entire payment. The appellant in their reply dated December 17, 2018 have stated that when notice dated October 15, 2018 was received demanding ₹ 26,85,907 the appellant paid ₹ 25 lakhs in cash to Shri Ritesh Vijhani on October 27, 2018 who is the authorized representative of the first respondent and said Ritesh Vijhani has acknowledged the receipt of ₹ 25 lakhs. It is also stated that the balance ₹ 1 lakh will be paid at the time of returning all the cheques which were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating Authority nor this Appellate Tribunal will go into the veracity and authenticity of such document since the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority are summary in nature and cannot adjudicate upon seriously disputed documents which need to examine the persons involved to be cross-examined in a regular trial before competent court of jurisdiction and if necessary, the documents need to be sent to Forensic Department for its genuineness. Even otherwise, the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not appear to be recognizing such cash payment. Therefore, the said contention of the appellant that they have paid a sum of ₹ 25 lakhs on October 27, 2018 to an authorized representative of the operational creditor-first respondent herein, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
