9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payment nor sent any notice of dispute and the alleged outstanding amount of more than ₹1,00,000/-. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the amount due and payable against the Corporate Debtor in the circumstances - the service of the demand notice on the corporate debtor was proper. Despite service of notice under Section 8(1) of the I B Code, 2016 the Corporate Debtor neither made the payment not raised any dispute of the outstanding amount. The Appellant has admitted that the Court notice was received by its employee Ashish Gupta on 17th August 2019, but he left the organisation on 03rd October 2019. Since the said employee was in active employment of the Appellant/Corporate Debtor when he received the notice, thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 18th October 2016. Under the said purchase order, the Applicant supplied the materials at the said site as per terms of the purchase order, and further invoices were raised by the Applicant/operational creditor. 3. The Applicant further contends that after the work, various invoices totalling to ₹ 1,66,57,721.95 were raised and delivered to the corporate debtor, which were duly received without any complaint or dispute concerning the goods. The corporate debtor had issued a certificate to that effect confirming the execution of job for an amount of ₹ 1,66,57,000; part payment was also made and leaving a balance of ₹ 2,826,817. 95 only. 4. The Operational Creditor, on several occasions, requested the corporate debto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e‟, stating that no notice of the dispute was raised by the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant also submitted the copy of the statement in compliance with the requirements of Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 10. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the Application is complete and the Applicant is entitled to claim its dues, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt beyond doubt, and fulfilment of the requirement under Section 9(5) of the Code. Hence, the present Application is admitted . (quoted verbatim) 11. The Appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the impugned order is an ex parte order and was communicated to the Appellant on 09th January 2020 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e debt and not shying away from the liability of the company and has already paid an amount of ₹ 1,38,30,182/- to the Respondent. 16. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 17. The Appellant admits that the court notices were received by its employee Ashish Gupta on 17th August 2019, and said that employee left the organisation on of 3rd October 2019. Therefore, the said employee was in active employment of the Appellant when he received the Court notice. Therefore, it is apparent that the order to proceed the case ex-parte against the Corporate Debtor was legally justified. It is also apparent that the Corporate Debtor intentionally avoided presenting in Court despite serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earliest. Scanned copy of the mail as under: All these correspondence or before issuance of demand notice dated 28th May 2018 which duly served on the registered office of the Corporate Debtor by email dated 14th June 2018. It is pertinent to mention that the demand notice sent through registered AD was received by the Corporate Debtor on 02nd June 2018, which is clear from the tracking report filed along with the written submissions of the Operational Creditor. 20. In the circumstances, it is clear that the Corporate Debtor failed to make the payment despite service of the demand notice issued under Form 3 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2016). The Corporate Debtor neither mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
