9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Office 365 Licenses and counter complaints of the Petitioner regarding absence of Essential System Requirements in the organization of the Respondent. Thus, there is sufficient material to believe that disputes certainly exist in the facts of the present case regarding non-functioning of the System provided by the Petitioner - Pre-existing dispute before the filing of this application is observed. The petition does not deserve admission - Petition rejected. - C. P. ( I. B. ) No. 455/9/NCLT/AHM/2018 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2020 - Harihar Prakash Chaturvedi, Member (J) And Prasanta Kumar Mohanty, Member (T) For the Appellant : Manish R. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate, Shashvata Skhukla i/b Rohan Lavkumar For the Respondent : Manu Saiwan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is stated that as an independent and additional service which the purchaser pays for, the Petitioner also installs the said software and assists the purchasers in migrating to the new systems. It also provides a service contract for the said solution. Thus, a contract entered into between the petitioner and a purchaser would usually consist of (1) purchase of a Microsoft License which is an essence of sale of goods and (2) Service Contract to service the said contract. 4. It is further stated that by a Purchase Order dated 30th June, 2015 (Exhibit F of Page 44 of the petition), the Respondent had ordered 8,000 Microsoft office 365 Licenses for a sum of ₹ 50,43,975.00 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Forty Three Thousand nine Hundred Seventy F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price agreed and invoiced by the petitioner. The Respondent received the product and made the payment of ₹ 29,24,984.00 through RTGS being a part payment meaning thereby that the Respondent had accepted the terms contained in the invoice dated 8th August, 2015. 8. It is submitted by the Petitioner that signing of all the agreements, the delivery of licenses as well as the part payment of the tax invoice is an admission on the part of the Respondent. 9. It is submitted by the Petitioner, that upon delivery of the aforesaid product, the Petitioner was entitled to receive full payment within a period of 60 days. Thus, by October 10, 2015 the petitioner was entitled to the remainder amount of ₹ 29,24,963.00. 10. It is submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20.01.2016, the Petitioner assured the Respondent that Petitioner would take up these serious issues/hindrances in the working of the 0365 Mailing Solutions/Licenses with their Management internally and also with Microsoft. However, the same were neglected. Then again vide email dated 02.03.2016, Mr. Neeraj Sharma from Respondent's side was compelled to explicitly cancel the said Purchase Order. 13. It is further submitted that vide email dated 03.03.2016 through their representative Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, the Petitioner requested the Respondent to review its decision and not to cancel the said Purchase Order and assured the Respondent that Mr. Rajiv, the Country Head of Microsoft would meet the Respondent between 7th to 10th March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, the Respondent's lawyer appeared but failed to file objections and the matter was adjourned to 13.02.2019 and again on 13.02.2019, the Respondent's lawyer did not appear and the matter was adjourned to 08.04.2019. On 08.04.2019, at the request of the Respondent's lawyer, the matter was adjourned and listed for hearing on 21.06.2019 and again at the request of the Respondent's lawyer, the matter was adjourned to 14.08.2019 and again on 12.09.2019. On 12.09.2019, this Adjudicating Authority partly heard the arguments of the Respondent's lawyer. Once again, at the request of the Respondent's lawyer, the matter was adjourned to 23.10.2019 when the matter was reserved for pronouncement. 17. Observations: 17.1 Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjusted by the Petitioner, at the request of the Respondent, towards satisfaction of the Petitioner's earlier dues. 17.6 The Demand Notice is issued on 15.03.2017. This application has been filed by the Petitioner on 28.08.2018 i.e. after 17 months. 17.7 This Adjudicating Authority is not the right forum to examine and adjudicate as to which portion of the claims are admissible. The Adjudicating Authority will also not examine the merits of the dispute. There are repeated complaints of the Respondent about non-functioning of the Office 365 Licenses and counter complaints of the Petitioner regarding absence of Essential System Requirements in the organization of the Respondent. Thus, there is sufficient material to believe that di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
