9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Demand Notice within the statutory period of 10 days and disputed the unauthorised use of brand keywords and reporting of incorrect geographical locations of leads by the Applicant. The contention of the Corporate Debtor that Applicant breached the representations and warranties under clause 4(a) of the Contract dated 09.07.2018 amounts to pre-existing dispute - the present Application filed under section 9 of the I B Code is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. Application dismissed. - C.P. (IB) No. 1775/NCLT/MB/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2019 - Hon'ble Member (Judicial): Mr V. P. Singh And Hon'ble Member (Technical): Mr Rajesh Sharma For the Applicant: Advocate Jaideep Singh Khattar For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each such user who would click on SMS and create an account, the Applicant was paid a fee by the Corporate Debtor which was predetermined depending on the geographical location of the user. 5. The Applicant submitted that, pursuant to the services provided to the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant had raised 54 invoices on the Corporate Debtor which were duly paid by the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant submitted that present operational debt of ₹6,35,13,977/- arose pursuant to invoice dated 28.12.2018 raised by the Applicant on Corporate Debtor for the work done during the period from 01.12.2018 to 15.12.2018. The copy of invoice dated 28.12.2018 is annexed to the Application. 6. The Applicant submitted that the Corporate Debtor f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uspended the services and outstanding payments to the Applicant under Agreement dated 09.07.2018. The copy of legal notice is annexed to the Application and the receipt of legal notice is not disputed by the Applicant. 8. The Corporate Debtor has filed its Affidavit in Reply on 06.08.2019. The Corporate Debtor in its Affidavit in Reply submitted that the Applicant has made unauthorised use of brand names of the Corporate Debtor and has over-charged the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor also submitted that, the Applicant has bribed and colluded with the Corporate Debtor s employees and has over-stated its fees to the Corporate debtor by fraudulently passing off users from one State (for which payment was lower) as being users from an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). What is important is that the existence of the dispute and/or the suit or arbitration proceeding must be pre-existing - i.e. it must exist before the receipt of the demand notice or invoice, as the case may be. (emphasis supplied) 11. Further, it is also pertinent to note that Under Section 5(6) of the I B Code, the word dispute is defined as: dispute includes a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to (a) the existence of the amount of debt; (b) the quality of goods or service; or (c) the breach of a representation or warranty; 12. Therefore, on perusal of the documents submitted by the parties, this Bench has observed that the Corporate Debtor has on 23.03.2019, which was before the receipt of demand notice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
