9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding alleged amount(s). In view of the willingness of both the parties to settle the issue, we are inclined to dispose of the Company Petition with a permission to the Petitioner to submit its claim with all the supporting evidence to the Respondent for its considerations and thereafter, if any grievances remains for the Petitioner, it can approach this Authority - Petition disposed off. - C. P. (IB) No. 395/BB/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2020 - Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (J) and Ashutosh Chandra, Member (T) For the Appellant : Manasi Kumar For the Respondents : S. Gangadhar Gowda ORDER Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (J) 1. The Petitioner has initially filed C.P.(IB) No. 1129/ND/2019, U/ss. 8 9 of the IBC, 2016 R/w Rule 6(1) of I B (AAA) Rules, 2016, before NCLT, New Delhi Bench by inter-alia seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of M/s. Ebaco India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent/Corporate Debtor) on the ground that it has committed default for an amount of ₹ 21,44,588.10/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Five Hundre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent/Corporate Debtor, and has also made part payments in respect of the various goods supplied leaving a total balance of ₹ 21,44,588.40 as payable. (4) It is stated that the Petitioner/Operational Creditor had completed the works as required by the Corporate Debtor and raised bills. The Corporate Debtor was privy to the kind of goods used during the work by the Operational Creditor and the letters dated 24th October, 2015, 22nd March, 2016, 11th February, 2016, 25th February, 2016, 10th March, 2016 by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor in pursuance of the work done. It has incurred hardship with respect to excavation, anti termite weed killer treatment. Furthermore, the Petitioner/Operational Creditor had to bear a loss of ₹ 1,74,881.20/-in pursuance to the labor cost. (5) It is stated that the Petitioner have done the work in usual course of business and the Respondent/Corporate Debtor acknowledged the same in usual course of business. The Respondent/Corporate Debtor despite notice, has not made any payment. He it is entitled for a decree for a sum of ₹ 21,44,588.40/- along with further interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 12th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the payment from the Petitioner dated 24.10.2015, 22.03.2016, 11.02.2016 and 25.02.2016 on the outstanding amount. Further, states that the Respondent has made 90% of the payment on the Work Order to the Petitioner. The Letter of Demand Notice under Form-3 to the Respondent got replied by their Counsel to the Petitioner. In the reply notice, they had clearly disputed the amount of ₹ 21,44,588.40/-. There is only 10% of the Work Order value retained by the Respondent. Further, the Respondent is willing to settle the amount of ₹ 5,80,167/- as out of retention amount of ₹ 6,70,167/- on which they have paid ₹ 90,000/- on 4th February 2015 against work order dated 12.06.2016. (3) It is alleged that the instant Company Petition is filed with an intention to defame the Company in the market and having vengeance to do repute the Respondent Company in the Indian Market. It is a solvent Company and having good market in the flooring and furniture products and services for specialized industries such as sports, education and healthcare. 5. Heard Ms. Manasi Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri S. Gangadhar Gowda, and learned Counsel for the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment to our client damaging reputation of my client in the market. Still we are giving you client an opportunity to settle our clients legitimate claim amicably otherwise our client will approach legal ways to get justice as per Indian prevailing laws. 9. Subsequently, the Petitioner issued a Statutory Demand Notice dated 15.05.2018, to the Respondent, by demanding the Respondent to pay defaulted amount of ₹ 21,44,588.40/-. In responds to this Notice, the Respondent has issued reply dated 08.06.2018, by disputing the claim of the Petitioner and also expressed their willingness to settle reasonable claims, thus invited to send the claim, if any, with an evidence for considerations. Therefore, the Petitioner without availing the opportunity given by the Respondent and made effort to settle the issue, has filed the instant Company Petition by seeking to initiate CIRP. 10. As stated supra, the claim made by the Petitioner is not established beyond doubt by producing evidence and it is also on record, even prior to the Statutory Demand Notice dated 15.05.2018, there is a clear dispute with regard to the claim made by the Petitioner. Moreover, the parties also admitted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
