9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporate Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Amrawati, Bench at Hyderabad by the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 rejected an Application on the ground that the claim of the Appellant falls within the ambit of disputed claim. 2. The brief facts leading to this Appeal are that the Appellant had supplied the goods between 30.08.2016 to 20.12.2016 and raised 5 invoices amounting to Rs. 23,22,537/-. The Respondent sent balance confirmation as on 31.08.2018 and promise to pay the same. The Respondent however, did not honour the invoices and clear the dues. The Appellant accordingly issued demand notice on 07.09.2018 under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code, for the above amount and interest total 31,73,578/-. The Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent had paid an amount of Rs. 5 Lakh only. 6. Ld. Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties reached to the conclusion that the Appellant failed to prove that the Respondent owns an operational debt of Rs. 23,22,537/- and there is pre-existing dispute about the claim therefore, by the impugned order rejected the Application under Section 9 of I&B Code. 7. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent has raised false and baseless dispute after service of notice under Section 8 of I&B Code. The goods were received and accepted by the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) and there was no dispute at the time of delivery of goods in regard to quantity and quality of goods and the Corporate Debtor issued account confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties we have perused the record. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innvations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirussa Software Pvt. Ltd. 2017 1 SCC Online SC 353 held as to what are facts to be examined by the Adjudicating Authority while examining an Application under Section 9 of I & B Code which is as follows: - "34. Therefore, the adjudicating authority, when examining an application under Section 9 of the Act will have to determine: (i) Whether there is an "Operational Debt" as defined exceeding Rs. 1 Lakh? (See Section 4 of the Act) (ii) Whether the documentary evidence furnished with the application shows that the aforesaid debt is due and payable and has not yet been paid? And (iii) Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by Kotak Mahindra Bank from 1.9.2018 to 11.10.2018. (iv) Central Sales Tax Form-C (v) Confirming Balance of Rs. 23,04,537/- as on 31.3.2018. (vi) Notice u/s 8(1) of I & B Code. 12. From the above referred documentary evidence furnished with the application shows that Rs. 23,22,537/- along with interest i.e. operational debt is due and payable and has not yet been paid. 13. Now we have considered whether there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Respondent in the reply dated 5.10.2018 to the notice, raised the dispute however in support no documentary evidence was filed. For appreciating the facts we would like to reproduce some portions of the reply to the notice which are as under: "Secondly it is pertinent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said payments under the invoices cannot be payable by us. Further it is also noted that your client is having possession of our letter head had forged the annexure-3 alleged confirmation of balance and forged our seal and signature to suit your client's convenience." 14. From the above referred facts it is clear that Appellant had regularly supplied goods to the Respondent i.e. earlier to the 5 invoices. The Respondent has denied that the Appellant has never delivered 5 invoices referred in the application but subsequently he admits that the Appellant has supplied goods as per invoice dated 26.11.2016 and 20.12.2016. In the C-Forms delivered by the Respondent to the Appellant there is reference to all the 5 invoices, the Respondent has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence." 16. We find that in this case in reply to the notice the Respondent has raised a vague and baseless allegations against the Appellant which are not supported by any documentary evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that the dispute is spurious or hypothetical, hence the Adjudicatory Authority has to reject such defence. 17. We are of the view that there is no material to presume that the application is perused with malicious intention. Appellants claim is not for interest amount therefore the appellant will not get any benefit from the order of this Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
