9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought on record by the parties that dispute in regard to quality of goods not matching the specification of franchiser was for the first time raised by the Corporate Debtor in its reply to the demand notice, justifies the conclusion that the defence raised was an afterthought and spurious. Factum and validity of the letter produced, goes un-assailed and uncontroverted on the part of Corporate Debtor as also the Appellant. The amount acknowledged to be in default far exceeds the prescribed limit of ₹ 1 lakh warranting triggering of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process . In this view of the matter, the issue raised in this appeal no more survives for consideration as the operational debt being due and payable stands admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneously dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority as an afterthought and a spurious defence. 2. Adverting to the factual matrix relevant for determining the issue raised in this appeal, be it seen that the Operational Creditor claims to have supplied cables to the Corporate Debtor against the purchase orders in pursuance whereof goods were supplied in December 2017, January 2018 and May, 2018. It was stated that certain goods were taken back by the Operational Creditor at the request of the Corporate Debtor . However, some payment remained outstanding leading to issue of Demand Notice by the Operational Creditor under Section 8 of the I B Code on 18th November, 2018. The same was replied to by the Corporate Debtor on 27th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it is for the first time on 2nd November, 2019 in reply to email of Operational Creditor of July, 2019 that the claim has been disputed. Having regard to this factual position, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed the issue raised by the Corporate Debtor with regard to pre-existing dispute as an afterthought. 3. The narrow issue for consideration is whether there was a preexisting dispute, as raised by the Corporate Debtor , that would not warrant passing of the impugned order of admission of application under Section 9. 4. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that the Corporate Debtor had raised the issue of goods supplied by the Operational Creditor not meeting the specifications of its franchiser SBPDCL. Reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial and the letter dated 14th May, 2018 is forged and fabricated document with no proof of its service upon the Operational Creditor . In this regard, it is noteworthy that reply to demand notice does not even make mention of such letter. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority was justified in declaring the stand taken by the Corporate Debtor as an afterthought and a spurious defence. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor , in its email dated 27th August, 2018 admitted and acknowledged the liability of paying the outstanding dues to Operational Creditor . Even during pendency of this appeal, the Corporate Debtor , vide letter dated 31st December, 2019 admitted that ₹ 1,74,007,75/- is due and payable to the Operational Creditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as it fell short of the prescribed value of ₹ 1,00,000/-, which warrants triggering of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process . This plea no more holds good as the subsequent development during pendency of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process unfolds. This is manifested in the form of a letter dated 31st December, 2019 wherein the Corporate Debtor while disputing the claim of Operational Creditor in regard to amount of ₹ 2,32,46,235/- as claimed in Form-5 acknowledged liability in respect of an amount of ₹ 1,74,007,75/- being due and payable to the Operational Creditor . Factum and validity of this letter goes un-assailed and uncontroverted on the part of Corpora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
