9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h this is not the forum to examine and adjudicate as to which portion of the claims or counter claims are admissible. Tribunal will not examine the merits of the dispute other than to see if there is in fact exist a 'real dispute' having some substance. There is 'Pre-existence dispute' which was raised by the corporate debtor prior to the notice served under section 8 of I B Code. It is a fit case to reject the application under section 9 of the I B Code - Application dismissed. - Company Petition No. IB-1147/ND/2018 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2020 - Dr. Deepti Mukesh, Member (J) And Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Member (T) For the Appellant : M.K. Garg, B.L., Kundan Kumar Roy, Anurag Tandon For the Respondent : Savmay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant raised invoices totaling of ₹ 91,82,988/- from 10.03.2015 to 05.08.2015. A copy of the statement showing materials sold by the applicant and the amount due from the corporate debtor is enclosed. It is stated that the applicant maintained a running account in its ledger of the corporate debtor. 5. It is submitted that after various repeated requests and reminders to the corporate debtor and its directors, the payment was not coming through hence the applicant sent a legal notice dated 02.01.2019 for an amount of ₹ 91,82,988/- which is the claim amount in the application to which the corporate debtor had replied through on 19.01.2018 raising dispute with respect to said debt. Copies of the legal notice dated 02.01.2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by it was clearly and expressly stated that the supply of steel was delayed by the applicant, thereby causing losses to the corporate debtor and delaying the construction of the project of the corporate debtor. It is further submitted that in 2017, the corporate debtor had received summons issued under section 131 (Power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the assistant commissioner of income tax as the applicant had failed to clear its liability. The income tax department had raised demands on persons who the applicant had claimed were its debtors including corporate debtor. The income tax department proceeded to issue notices under section 226(3) (Other modes of recovery) of the Income Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requires further investigation and that the dispute is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exist in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application. In the present case the respondent has raised dispute with sufficient particulars. Besides the case records reveal that there was existence of dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
