9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Corporate Debtor before the impugned agreement. Thus, from the said e-mail of the Operational Creditor, it can be said that the disputes were not settled and persisted even after the agreement and were brought to the notice of the Operational Creditor before the receipt of demand notice and in the reply of the Corporate Debtor to the demand notice of the Operational Creditor. Given the pre-existing dispute, this petition is rejected. - CP 2825(IB)/MB/2018 - - - Dated:- 2-4-2019 - Hon ble Mr V.P. Singh, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr Ravikumar Duraisamy, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner: Adv. Rohan Kelkar, Adv. Saloni Jain For the Respondent: Adv. Vishal Kanade, Adv. Bharati Narichania and Adv. Vishal Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Creditor and agreed to pay the same as per a mode and schedule. Subsequently, on 16th and 17th January, 2015 a meeting was held between Corporate Debtor, Operational Creditor and Hindalco where it was agreed that a sum of ₹30,01,985.21/- is due from Ducon to Operational Creditor that shall be paid by the Hindalco directly to the Operational Creditor against Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) to be furnished by the Operational Creditor. The Operational Creditor furnished the PBGs as recorded in the Letter dated 23.03.2015. 3. Certain communication that happened prior to the agreement arrived at in the meeting held on 17.01.2015 are annexed by the Petitioner viz. e-mail dated 16.01.2014 sent by the Corporate Debtor to the Operatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed e-mail dated 02.07.2014 sent by the Corporate Debtor to the vendor and manufacturer of the goods supplied by the Operational Creditor apprising it of the manufacturing defect in the goods and the inability of the service personnel to remove the defect. A similar e-mail dated 03.07.2014 sent by Hindalco to the vendor and manufacturer of the goods supplied by the Operational Creditor apprising it of the manufacturing defect in the goods and requesting to either rectify the defect or replace the belts. The Corporate Debtor had also raised disputes regarding the quality of goods supplied vide various e-mail like the e-mail dated 06.03.2014 and 23.09.2014. 7. The Corporate Debtor in its e-mail dated 28.01.2015 has stated that as per the jo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 to the Corporate Debtor demanding payment of ₹1,15,50,712/-. The same was delivered to the Corporate Debtor on 21.12.2017 as acknowledged in reply to the demand notice of the corporate debtor dated 30.12.2017. In reply to this Demand notice, the Corporate Debtor has among other things raised the issue of it being signed by an authorised signatory of another company called Indiana Gratings Pvt Ltd . It has further emphasised on the quality issues raised by it regarding the Belt Conveyors supplied by the Corporate Debtor and delay in the delivery schedule of the services. 10. The Petitioner sent another Demand Notice dated 03.02.2018 to the Corporate Debtor demanding payment of ₹1,15,50,712/-. The Corporate Debtor receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
