9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays bringing to the notice of the petitioner of the pending dispute. These things prove the existence of dispute between the parties prior to the issuing of notice by the Petitioner. The petitioner has also not filed the affidavit as per section 9(3)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 2016, stating that the petitioner has no notice as to the existence of dispute with the respondent with regard to the unpaid operational debt. Application dismissed. - IB-1078(ND)2019 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2019 - Dr. P.S.N. Prasad Hon'ble Member (Judicial) And DR. V.K. Subburaj Hon'ble Member (Technical) Counsel for Applicant: Nakul Mohta. Advocate Counsel for Respondent: Asheesh Jain, Advocate ORDER 1 . This is an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o make payment of the outstanding debt. The Applicant sent an email dated 10.03.2017 to the respondent here the respondent has admitted and acknowledged the outstanding due of ₹ 53,83,299/- after deducting the T DS that makes the total operational debt of ₹ 59.81,433/-. v. The Respondent despite admitting the invoices failed making the payment of the dues. The applicant follows the mercantile system of accounting and in view acknowledgement of liability by the respondent the applicant has paid the income tax in the highest slab including the respondent and the respondent has been shown as sundry debtor in the books of accounts filed with the income tax returns of the applicant. vi. The Applicant issued Demand Notice in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd. Sudhir Sales Services Ltd. Vs. D-Art Furniture Systems Pvt. Ltd. Satyendra Singh Vs. Raina Subralnanian Ors Sarla Tantia Vs. Ramaanil Hotels Resorts Pvt. Ltd 4. Acknowledgement of Debt The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi- II vs. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2. Consequent to the notice issued b) this Tribunal. the Respondent filed its reply in which the following contentions are made: i. The petition is an attempt by the applicant to extort certain amounts from the respondent. That the applicant has failed to give the calculations of any undisputed amount which as due or payable by the applicant to the respondent. ll. The applicant Sangeeta Goel claimin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... status of the patents in different countries. viii. The Respondent, on 26.10.2019 received an email sent 10 IMF. Anil Jain by the SIM SAN containing the status of patent applications filed in 15 countries. The respondent discovered that the patents in two countries had lapsed and patent applications in many countries were still pending. out of h ich patents in 4 more countries lapsed clue to the failure on the part of SIM SAN ix. The Respondent alter receiving the information about the lapses on the part of SIM SAN had issued a notice staling that their services no longer be required unless the lapsed patents were restored. x. The Respondent on 3 1 .12.2016, received a bill from SIM SAN of the renewal fees for the patents f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present petition. The petitioner has not filed the affidavit as per section 9(3)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, stating that the petitioner has no notice as to the existence of dispute with the respondent with regard to the unpaid operational debt. On this short point itself the present petition is liable to be rejected. xv. The Petitioner has claimed in the petition that an amount of ₹ 63,29, 169/- is due and payable by the Respondent to the petitioner as unpaid operational debt . no exact calculations as to how the amount has been arrived at is mentioned in the petition along with that the petitioner has failed to explain the basis of claiming that the parties were having a mutual running account' xvi. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e corporate debtor. Therefore as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited, this petition filed under Sec 9 of the I B Code. 2016 deserves to be rejected. 3. We have gone through the documents filed by both the parties and heard the arguments made by the counsels. The Applicant had provided the professional legal services and application and registration of Patents in more than 15 counties to the respondent since March 2011 . The Applicant has raised invoices for amount of ₹ 63,29,169/- the Respondent claims to have paid ₹ 24,00,000/-. 4. From the perusal of the reply filed by the Respondent it is clear that the Respondent has sent an email on 09.04.2018. complaining about the qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
