9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 invoices. The petitioner has not produced any Purchase order/Contract issued by the Respondent in support of supply of goods in question but produced invoices along Petition. At bottom of invoices, there is un-signed declaration by declaring that @ 18 % Per annum shall be charged if payment is delayed beyond 30 days from the date of supply or Credit terms agreed up on in writing. However, the Petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of supply of goods in question or Credit terms in question - The Petitioner has not initiated any legal action for the cause of action started from 12th February, 2018 except issuing a legal notice dated 23rd January, 2019 under the provisions of Code. The Petitioner has also not explained the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng CIN No. U74999KA2017PTC105935. The Company is engaged in the business of designing, producing and supplying high quality ready mix concrete of different grades. 3. M/s. Nitesh Housing Developers Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, is a company incorporated on 04.12.2007 under the Companies Act, 1956 bearing CIN No. U45201KA2007PTC044553. The Company is engaged in the business of construction, developing, designing, planning, managing etc., of real estate. 4. It is stated that the Respondent approached the Petitioner for the supply of Readymix Concrete and raised various purchase orders. As per the purchase orders concrete was supplied under various invoices from the period February 2018 till July 2018. The Respondent not raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id further litigation. Therefore, the Respondent has given post dated cheque dated 15.03.2020 drawn on Bank of Baroda bearing Cheque No. 000914 for a sum of ₹ 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only)in the name of petitioner, as full and final settlement claim made in the petition. 8. It is a settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding amount but it can be invoked to initiate CIRP for justified reasons as per the Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) 1 SCC 353, has inter alia, held that IBC, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. In another latest judgement rendered in Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delayed beyond 30 days from the date of supply or Credit terms agreed up on in writing. However, the Petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of supply of goods in question or Credit terms in question. The Petitioner has filed a copy of statement at Document No. 24, which is stated to have attached to the legal notice dated 23rd January, 2019, wherein it is interalia stated that they have received part payment of invoice amount. The Petitioner has not initiated any legal action for the cause of action started from 12th February, 2018 except issuing a legal notice dated 23rd January, 2019 under the provisions of Code. The Petitioner has also not explained the delay in initiating proceedings. 10. For the aforesaid reasons and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
