9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the MSME Development Act, 2006. Furthermore, the Corporate Debtor has also sent a reply on 07.02.2019, to the demand notice dated 21.01.2019, sent by the Operational Creditor raising the pre-existing dispute with regards to the amount claimed to the demand notice. This Adjudicating Authority has already held that the pendency of the Application before MSME establishes pre-existing dispute as long as the dispute is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory but an admitted fact on record. In the case in hand, the Petitioner Company itself had admitted to the fact that the matter is seized of by MSME council and the adjudication by the said council is pending Arbitration proceedings between the parties have been commenced which clearly e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... editor with a fee fixed at ₹ 22 Lakhs for availing project monitoring services. c. That the invoices were raised from 24.11.2014 till 16.02.2017 and the Corporate Debtor has released payments for the services in full up to 06.10.2016. d. That there was a substantial delay in making part payment. e. payment of the consideration by the Corporate Debtor after completion of the services as per engagement letter and the same has accrued as an operational debt of ₹ 73,52,122.92/- . f. That the Operational Creditor has approached the Delhi MSME, facilitation counsel for redressal of their grievances on 27.07.2018. g. That the Corporate Debtor has failed to make payment despite repeated request and that the Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebtor have been commenced with the failure of conciliation between the parties as per section 18(3) of the MSME Development Act, 2006. d. That the reference to MSME council and the Arbitration proceedings under the MSME Council clearly constitute the dispute under Section 5(6) of the IBC, 2016 and therefore, the present Petition is required to be dismissed U/s 8(2)(a) of the IBC, 2016 in view of pre-existing dispute. e. That the Corporate Debtor through its reply letter dated 07.02.2019, to the demand notice of the Operational Creditor has categorically disputed the claim raised in the Petition. f. That the Operational Creditor has placed its reliance on the Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox innovation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry but an admitted fact on record. (Shrishti Electromech Pvt Ltd Vs Vijay Home Appliances Pvt Ltd in CP (IB) No. 396/9/HDB/2018). In the case in hand, the Petitioner Company itself had admitted to the fact that the matter is seized of by MSME council and the adjudication by the said council is pending Arbitration proceedings between the parties have been commenced which clearly establishes that there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties. 6. From the above, this Adjudicating Authority deems it fit, not to admit the present petition holding that there exist a pre-existing dispute between the parties. 7. In the result, the instant petition i.e., CP (IB) No.124/9/HDB/2019 is hereby rejected. No order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
