9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of work. The project hand over report dated 13.08.2018 submitted by the neutral third party to certify the construction site submitted by the applicant in the petition also contains the fact that major leakage has been found in the work as well as work was not found as per the satisfaction of the third party. The documentary evidence submitted by both the parties clearly establishes the pre-existence of dispute between the parties prior to the issuing of notice by the Petitioner. Application dismissed. - IB-1507/(ND)/2019 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2020 - P.S.N. Prasad, Member (J) And Dr. V.K. Subburaj, Member (T) For the Appellant : Hetish Raj Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Manoj Kumar Garg For the Respondent : Siddhartha Patra, Advocates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Applicant in terms of material supplied raised invoices upon the Respondent. It is stated that the Respondent has failed to make payment on account on invoices raised. The total amount of the outstanding dues is ₹ 21,81,444/- which pertain to material and services provided to the Respondent. iv. The Applicant issued Demand Notice in the form of Form-3 under Section 8 of the Code read with Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 dated 28.03.2019 calling upon the Respondent to clear the amount of default i.e. ₹ 21,81,444/-. The Respondent upon receipt of the Demand Notice dated 28.03.2019 issued a reply dated 14.04.2019. v. The Respondent was duty bound to make payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 15.11.2018 to the applicant stating that the Respondent has faced lots of monetary loss due to the unethical and unprofessional behavior of the applicant, the loss of business to the tune of ₹ 3 crore per month as lots of buyers shifted to other companies. vi. The Respondent submits that he followed up for 6 months regarding the issues and every time the applicant was giving false commitments which were never fulfilled. The Respondent called Mr. Siddhartha, Mr. Sapra (Director of Chempharrn Industries Private Limited) and Mr. Rajendra 20-25 times daily and still there was no improvement regarding the said issue. The service installation head never visited the site of Respondent and false assurances were given each time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible dispute and not a hollow one and the letter dated 15.11.2018 contains no proper case to be counted as a dispute and is not backed by proper evidence. iv. That there was no formal agreement between the applicant and the Respondent neither the time was set for the work to be completed. The applicant submitted that the work was completed and the site was handed over to the associate of the Respondent vide its written note dated 13.08.2018 as mentioned in the application. 4. The Respondent has filed written submissions in which he has reiterated the certain points raised by him in the petition and they are as follows: i. The Respondent submits that the Rule 23(1) of NCLT Rules permits an authorized representative to be present an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as existence of real dispute between the parties, then the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could not be invoked. 5. We have gone through the documents filed by both the parties and heard the arguments made by the counsels. The Applicant had supplied the materials and provided the HVAC services. The Applicant has claimed an amount of ₹ 21,81,444/- as an outstanding operation debt from the Respondent. 6. From the perusal of the reply filed by the Respondent it is clear that the Respondent has sent an email on 15.11.2018, complaining about the delay in completion of work and quality of service provided by the petitioner and on perusal of the E-mails sent by respondent to the applicant dated 02.11.2017, 20.11.2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
