9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : A. K. Babbar and Surendra Kumar For the Respondents : Abinash Padhi, Santosh Kumar Pradhan and S. Jena ORDER Sucharitha R., Member (J) 1. The applicant M/s. Emgreen Impex Ltd. (Formerly known as Emgreen Impex Private Ltd. ) is represented by Shri Mahavir Singhal, Director. This application is filed under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of M/s. OHM Pipes Pvt. Ltd. 2. The respondent M/s. OHM Pipes Pvt. Ltd. is a private company limited by shares, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, bearing CIN: U252000R2009PTC010965 is represented by Shri Nitya Sloka Das, Director. 3. The Registered Office of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice of the Operational Creditor about the inferior quality of the goods supplied towards three (03) Invoices as below: (i) Invoice No. Oriel 0016, Dated -03.09.2015 Quantity 16 MT for ₹ 13,22,160/- (ii) Invoice No. Oriel 0018, Dated - 04.09.2015 Quantity 18 MT for ₹ 14,87,430/- (iii) Invoice No. Oriel 0019, Dated - 05.09.2015 Quantity 16 MT for ₹ 13,22,160/- 7. Further, the Corporate Debtor states that due to such inferior quality of raw material, the finished goods were found to be of substandard quality. During the production process, the representative of the Operational Creditor remained present and witnessed the process of manufacturing of the finished goods by using such raw materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by both the parties. It is clear that there are pre-existing disputes between the parties regarding the quality of goods supplied. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that existence of undisputed debt is sine qua non of initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in Civil Appeal No. 9597 of 2018, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited Vs. Equipment Conductors Cables Limited Order dated 23.10.2018 is as follows- 34. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority, when examining an application under Section 9 of the Act will have to determine: (i) Whether there is an operational debt as defined exceeding ₹ 1 lakh? (See Section 4 of the Act) (ii) Whether the documentary evidence furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the Adjudicating Authority has to reject the application. 11. In view of the above, CP (IB) No. 18/CTB/2019 is DISMISSED. No order to cost. However, this Order will not come in the way of the petitioner to invoke any other remedy available under any other law as to get their dues, if any. 12. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
