TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions, that there is a pre-existing dispute but the said dispute was raised for the first time only after notice under Section 8 of IBC was issued. In reply only statements are made by Corporate Debtor which has not been substantiated with any proof. The corporate debtor has not placed on record any document which exhibits the plausible dispute between the parties. There is no merit in the so-called dispute raised by the corporate debtor as mere reply filed by the corporate debtor to the present application, is unable to establish any pre-existing dispute of genuine nature. On the contrary the issuance of various cheques by the corporate debtor belies its story of dispute and confirms the admission of liability. This leaves no doubt that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debtor'). 2. The Applicant is a private limited company incorporated on 24.09.2007 under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 bearing CIN No. U14200DL2007PTC168592 having its registered office at D-176, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi-110015. The authorized share capital of the company is ₹ 1,50,00,000/- and the paid up capital of the company is ₹ 1,23,47,710/-. The applicant is engaged in the business of import, processing and supply of wide variety of marbles and stones across India and abroad. 3. The Corporate Debtor is a company limited Liability partnership registered with registrar of companies, Delhi, incorporated on 18.10.2017, under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 bearing Identification no. LLP IN-AAK-9097 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16,610/- @ 18% p.a. calculated from 25.01.2018 to 01.12.2018. The notice was served upon the registered office of the corporate debtor on 26.12.2018. 8. Upon receipt of demand notice the corporate debtor sent a reply dated 05.01.2019, the corporate debtor denied the contention of the applicant and stated that the goods supplied by the applicant were of defective and substandard in quality and raised several objections for the same. Further, the corporate debtor stated that items were never supplied on time resulting in delay in project of the corporate debtor. 9. The Applicant filed the present Application under section 9 of IBC, 2016 and served the copy of this application which was duly delivered to the Corporate Debtor as per service a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of the operational debt for which the invoices were raised by the applicant and the so called dispute raised by the corporate debtor is merely a moonshine dispute as laid down In "Mobilox Innovative Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited", the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "It is clear, therefore that once the Operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of operational creditor the "existence" of a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is complete. The applicant is entitled to claim its dues, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt. Hence, the application is admitted. 17. As a consequence of application being admitted and IRP name not suggested by the applicant, this Bench appoints Mr. Rajesh Kumar Goel, having email id: [email protected] and registration no. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P01810/2019-20/12761 as the Interim Resolution Professional, subject to the condition that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. The IRP is required to file consent Form-2 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rule 2016 and make disclosures as required under IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|