9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Respondent has placed sufficient evidence in support of their case showing there is an existing dispute with regard to the claim, which cannot be thrown as mere untenable defence. It is settled position of law, the Adjudicating Authority, in summary proceedings initiated under code, cannot enter into roving enquiry with disputed questions of facts. The Respondent on the contrary claiming for an amount of 10 Lakhs. Thus, the Petitioner failed to make out any case to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and it filed with an intention to recover the alleged outstanding amount. It is settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding alleged amount. Application dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,00/- and Paid-up share Capital is ₹ 10,00,00/-. (3) It is stated that the Corporate Debtor, vide their letter dated 12th December 2014 submitted a detailed methodology with scope of the study for the project for Cyle Track in HSR Layout, Bengaluru, including proposal dated 10th December 2014. Accordingly, on revised accepted terms the Operational Creditors paid an advance of ₹ 5,00,000/- on 7th February 2015, and issued work order for the project report with an understanding that the project report would be ready within 8 weeks thereon. The Corporate Debtor received ₹ 5,00,000/-, yet the Corporate Debtor kept on postponing submitting the Project Report, there has been no response from the side of the Corporate Debtor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t an email to the Corporate Debtor recalling the amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- paid to the Corporate Debtor in advance for the bicycle tract project report and requested the payment be made before the 10th March 2017. Further, the Operational Creditor issued letter dated 6th March 2017 enclosing the above dated email requesting the Corporate Debtor to refund the said amount without any further delay. The Operational Creditor sent an email dated 7th June, 2018, and letter dated 21st June, 2018, requesting the Corporate Debtor to process the refund as stipulated therein. The Operational Creditor issued letter dated 13th July 2018, by courier requesting the Corporate Debtor to refund the payment of advance done within 3 working days from the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Petitioner attaching the proposal and Invoice No. 20/2014-2015 for the advance 25% of the out of the total fee of ₹ 30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) which amount to ₹ 8,42,700/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and Seven Hundred Only) on 10th December 2014 and the same was received by the Petitioner. On 16th January, 2015, the Petitioner has forwarded reviewed letter and had raised some question and also revised the total estimation and agreed to pay ₹ 15,00,000/-. Further the Petitioner had agreed to pay an amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- as advance and the remaining ₹ 10,00,000/- would be paid to the Respondent on completion and acceptance of the said detailed project report by the Petitioner. On 7th F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om their end which was out of the scope of the agreed work. 4. Heard Shri Arvinda Kamat, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Shri Yathish S., learned Counsel for the Respondent. We have carefully perused the pleadings of both the parties and the extant provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder and the law on the issue. 5. The instant case is based on the letter dated 10.12.2014 wherein the terms and conditions of payment as mentioned supra, the total amount of ₹ 30 lakhs is to be paid by the Petitioner. Out of ₹ 30 Lakhs, 50% will be paid along with work order and the remaining 50% will be paid on submission of the final report. It is renegotiated and the amount was reduced to ₹ 15 Lakhs. However, the init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xisting dispute with regard to the claim, which cannot be thrown as mere untenable defence. It is settled position of law, the Adjudicating Authority, in summary proceedings initiated under code, cannot enter into roving enquiry with disputed questions of facts. As stated supra, the Respondent on the contrary claiming for an amount of ₹ 10 Lakhs. 7. The above facts and circumstance of the case clearly shows that the Petitioner failed to make out any case to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and it filed with an intention to recover the alleged outstanding amount. It is settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding alleged amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
