9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corporate debtor, notwithstanding the merit of the contentions of either side. The corporate debtor on 20.07.2018 has replied to the section 8 notice within 10 days from the date of receipt the notice stating that operational creditor failed to provide services as agreed between them by saying that this was informed to the creditor long before section 8 notice was issued. This claim is hit by pre-existing dispute - petition is dismissed. - CP (IB) NO. 1198/2018 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2019 - B. S. V. Prakash Kumar, Judicial Member And S. Vijayaraghavan, Technical Member For the Applicant : Thriyambak J. Kannan, Advs. For the Respondent : D. Chandra Sekar, Adv. ORDER B.S.V. PRAKASH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service provider and client, has not produced the agreement copy. It is the Corporate Debtor who filed it to justify its case saying that the Operational Creditor failed to adhere to the timelines mentioned in the agreement in providing services as mentioned in the agreement, therefore delay happened, owing to which the corporate debtor was constrained to engage somebody else to get the services for which this Operational Creditor was earlier engaged. 4. From the application filed by the creditor, it appears that this Petitioner raised invoices dated 05.03.2018 and 19.03.2018 for ₹ 10,45,922.80 against the Corporate Debtor, basing on which, the Petitioner issued Section 8 Notice dated 11.07.2018 against the debtor company demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debtor understood that fire license is not requirement for the list of licenses and registrations entrusted with the creditor, more over this fire license requirement was not put to the debtor earlier in point of time. As against the demand of return of documents by the debtor, the creditor issued another notice on 25th June 2018 stating that they were willing to settle the matter and return the documents listed in the notice mentioned provided an amount of ₹ 9,92,380 paid to the creditor. Again the debtor on 25.06.2018 replied to the creditor that the creditor had not completed the work entrusted with the creditor and failed to carry out the work entrusted to it, therefore the debtor was terminating the order of entrustment to carry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the ratio decided by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in between Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 292/144 SCL 37 Para 51, which is followed to say that the debtor herein raised the dispute not only in the reply notice given on 20.07.2018 (within 10 days) to the section 8 notice dated 11.07.2018, but also raised in the correspondence between the parties prior to the issual of section 8 notice.- '51. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
