9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to as a Code ) seeking for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ( CIRP in Short) against the Corporate Debtor Company namely, Gujarat Machinery Private Limited. 2. The office of the Petitioner is situated at 167, Shubh Estate, near Zaveri Estate, Singarva kathwada Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380430, India. The present Petition is filed through Mr. Bhagabhai Kantilal Patel. 3. The Respondent/ Corporate Debtor, namely Gujarat Machinery Private Limited was incorporated on 05.12.2008 with CIN: U29190GJ2008PTC055614. The authorised capital of the company is INR. and the paid-up capital is INR. 15,00,000.00 and the paid-up capital is INR 1,00,000.00. The registered office of the Corporate Debtor Company is situated at: Plot No. 524, G.I.D.C., Phase-Il, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382 445. It is submitted that the Operational Creditor is the supplier of miscellaneous machinery parts and had provided the service of repairing barrels, deep hole and honing etc. whereas the Corporate Debtor is involved in manufacture of general purpose machinery, manufactures Extrusion Tape Stretching Plants, Lamination Plant etc. 5. It is submitted that the Operational Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng from 30/05/2014 till 28/05/2016 forced the Operational Creditor to serve the Demand Notice dated 10/09/2018, along with all the requisite documents as contemplated under Section 8 read with rule 5 (1) (a) 5 (I)(b) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 at the registered office of the company as well as via e-mail dated 11/09/2018. This has given rise to the above petition being filed under the code for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Company. 8. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor had denied to pay the said outstanding dues to the Operational Creditor which clearly reflects from their mail dated 22/09/2018. As the Operational Creditor had given much time to clear their outstanding dues but the Corporate Debtor has not taken any initiative to clear the said outstanding dues. Furthermore, as stated in the second last para of their reply via mail that there was no formal communication between both the parties which is totally false as they are just trying to mislead the court. Mr. Suman Khagendranath Guharoy, who is one of the directors of Corporate Debtor had visited Operational Creditors place during the course of business and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... until specifically herein below. 12.3 It is stated that the present petition has been filed with a malafide intention in order to pressurize the respondent to pay the illegal demands of the petitioner. The respondent is not liable to pay the alleged amount to the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced the necessary documents in support of its contentions. The documents produced by the petitioner are not admitted by the respondent. 12.4 It is stated that the petitioner has not approached Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands and hence the petition is required to be dismissed. The petitioner has supressed the material facts from this Hon ble Tribunal and thereby the petition is required to be dismissed by imposing heavy costs. 12.5 It is stated that the details of the transactions provided by the petitioner are not correct. The Respondent craves you to produce the necessary documents at the time of hearing. It is denied that the respondent is liable to pay an amount of INR.5,91,693.00 and interest @ 24% as claimed by the petitioner. It is denied that the respondent is liable to pay the alleged claim of INR. 11,18,530.00. The respondent submits that none of the invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent company is not liable to pay the same as the Respondent company disputes its liability to pay such amount to the applicant. 12.10 It is stated that the goods were never supplied by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor. It is stated that as per the Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs Kirusa Software Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9405 of 2017 case, the Respondent is required to show whether there exists a plausible contention which requires further investigation and if the answer is in yes, the application is required to be dismissed. Further, the Adjudicating Authority is not required to enter in to merits and demerits of the case. 12.11 It is stated that the Respondent is a manufacturer of machinery parts. The Respondent had supplied alloy steel bars (raw material) to the Applicant. The Applicant was supposed to process the raw material and send the processed goods back to the Respondent. 12.12 It is stated that the Applicant has failed to supply the processed goods till date and thus, the Respondent is not under any liability to make any payment to the Applicant. The Applicant has produced delivery challans along with its application. The Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced at Page Nos. 21 to 35 along with the Petition. 13.5 It is submitted that the ledger of the Corporate Debtor maintained in the books of accounts of the petitioner is produced on page Nos. 53 to 54. As it is reflecting in the Ledger, the Corporate Debtor has made payments for the labour charges for the job work done by the Operational Creditor from time to time. 13.6 It is submitted that the Respondent further attempted to create a dispute in its objections that the scrape generated during the said honing process is not returned to it by the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that there was no such understanding between the parties that such scrap would be returned to the Respondent. The Petitioner has never returned such scrap to the Respondent in all these years as it is quite negligible in volume and value. The Respondent had paid all earlier bills without demanding any such scrap. The said ground is only legal ground taken at this belated stage with a sole intention to take some defence. The petitioner states that such averment at this stage is not maintainable in the eyes of law as it being after-thought moon-shine defence. 13.7 It is submitted that the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16.10.2014 15.11.2014 2,93,598.00 2,69,306.00 023 01.01.2015 31.01.2015 50,500.00 43,765.00 022 01.01.2015 31.01.2015 48 966.00 42 119.00 035 25.01.2015 24.02.2015 1,500.00 1,276.00 045 24.02.2015 26.03.2015 6,000.00 4,987.00 067 23.03.2015 22.04.2015 1 500.00 1 220.00 181 22.03.2016 21.04.2016 35,970.00 20,624.00 018 28.05.2016 27.06.2016 37,038.00 19,605.00 5,95,693.00 5,22,837.00 TOTAL 11,18,530.00 14.2 All Invoices submitted are more than 3 years ol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
