9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribed under the Code and Rules thereon. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The averments germane to the Petition in brief are:- 2.1 The Operational Creditor is engaged in engineering, procurement, construction and service of plants and machinery to domestic and overseas markets. During the course of business, the Corporate Debtor approached Corporate Debtor for supply of spare parts and also for providing services for 300 TPH 4 Stage Stationery skid mounted crushing and screening plant situated at Sevagad and Gunthakal in Andhra Pradesh and placed purchase orders during the period 18.03.2017 to 17.10.2017. The purchase orders are 15 in number, details of which are filed as Annexure-8 at page nos. 245-268. 2.2 It is stated Operational Creditor supplied spare parts and rendered services for which it raised 54 invoices totalling Rs. 96,18,418/-. The invoices are filed at page Nos. 269-376 as Annexure-9. 2.3 It is stated that Corporate Debtor received spare parts and also utilised the services without raising any objection and that the Corporate Debtor made part payment of Rs. 46,10,126/- out of Rs. 96,18,418 leaving an outstanding of Rs. 50,08,292/- The Computation Table is filed at Page No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s legally entitled to adjust the amount payable to the Operational Creditor towards loss suffered by it due to violation of terms by the Operational Creditor. It is also alleged that machinery supplied was also found to be defective. As such, there was a pre-existing dispute before issue of notice of demand. 3.4 The Corporate Debtor was demanding the Operational Creditor to come to the table to settle the issue but the Operational Creditor was unwilling for settlement. By raising a suit, the Operational Creditor committed breach of contract. Hence, prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the Petition. REJOINDER FILED BY OPERATIONAL CREDITOR TO THE COUNTER FILED BY CORPORATE DEBTOR 4. Rejoinder is filed by Operational Creditor countering the objections raised by the Corporate Debtor and reiterated the averments made in the Petition as under. In the rejoinder the Operational Creditor submitted that the Corporate Debtor in its entire counter/reply relied on the purchase orders issued by the Corporate Debtor in the year 2016 but did not specifically deny nor dispute the supply and services which were provided by the Operational Creditor with regard to Purchase Orders filed in the present pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporate Debtor raised a defence in respect of a different set of agreements which is only a moonshine defence to avoid payment to Operational Creditor. The Learned Counsel contended that the Corporate Debtor in the counter raised a dispute in respect of purchase order dated 20.07.2016. In fact, there is no dispute with regard to the said purchase order and plant was commissioned and it was handed over to the Corporate Debtor. Thus, there is absolutely no prior dispute in respect of purchase orders pertaining to the year 2016. The Counsel contended that the Corporate Debtor has signed commissioning report on successful completion and handing over of the plant. The Counsel contended that under old purchase order everything was completed. The Corporate Debtor is unnecessary connecting to the old purchase orders of 2016, whereas the present purchase orders is with reference to the supply of spares for the period from 18.03.2017 to 17.10.2017 and invoices are raised for the same. Part payment was made leaving the outstanding balance which was committed default. Thus, the Learned Counsel contended that the petition is liable to be admitted and defence taken by Corporate Debtor is only a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2016 which is for erection of plant, whereas the present case is filed in respect of purchase orders placed for supply of spares and invoices are also raised for the same. It is interesting to note that the Corporate Debtor paid part of the amount covered by the invoices and committed default of paying the remaining balance. 13. The main contention of Corporate Debtor is that there is a prior dispute. The Corporate Debtor is referring to the Purchase order of the year 2016. The Operational Creditor is contending that all the works were completed in respect of purchase orders which are two in number of the year 2016. On the other hand, the Corporate Debtor is trying to contend that there is a pre-existing dispute by referring to purchase orders of the year 2016 which is not at all the subject matter of the present petition. Except alleging some dispute with regard to the purchase orders of 2016, the Corporate Debtor did not raise any objection with regard to the purchase orders relied upon by the Operational Creditor in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a prior dispute. 14. Admittedly, the Corporate Debtor has not raised any dispute with regard to pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
