9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Appeal Paper Book) The respondent has produced its statement of accounts which clearly shows that the total amount outstanding against the appellant is ₹ 70,165/- which is less than ₹ 1 lac. The appellant has not pointed out any error in the statement of account filed by the respondent. Also, it is established that as on 31/03/2017, operational debt ₹ 19,89,130/- was due and payable and has not yet been paid - Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [ 2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] held that what is the scope of ascertaining the existence of a dispute at the time of admitting the Application, which is as follows:- it is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) and [Balvinder Singh] Member (Technical) For Appellant: Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt and Mr. Udbhav Nanda, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Manu Aggarwal, Advocate. JUDGMENT This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant M/s MCC Concrete (Operational Creditor) against the order dated 12/02/2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmadabad Bench, Ahmadabad. Whereby the Application preferred by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (In Short I B Code) has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the Operational Creditor (Appellant herein) has supplied ready MCC Concrete at various sites of the Corporate Debtor (Respondent herein) upon placing purchase order by the Corporate Debtor. Pursuant thereto the Operational Creditor had issued invoices upon the Corporate Debtor along with delivery challans. The delivery challans are signed and stamped by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor was earlier known as Mayfair Spaces Ltd. Hence, all the invoices and delivery challans were issued in the name of Mayfair Spaces Ltd. As per ledger account the Operational Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... air Corporate Park to whom the goods were delivered. On this basis it is held that there is pre-existing dispute regarding the goods supplied and invoices raised thereof. Hence, rejected the application. 5. Being aggrieved with this order, the Operational Creditor has filed this Appeal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant made following submissions: i. There is no pre-existing dispute with respect to the two invoices. Actually, the goods delivered on the site of Mayfair Corporate Park which is developed by Mayfair Spaces Ltd. (respondent) which is an associated entity of the respondent. Delivery challans are duly signed and stamped by the respondent. Therefore, respondent cannot dispute the said invoices. ii. The 14 invoices raised against the respondent amount to ₹ 08,53,775/- have been acknowledged with the seal and stamp of respondent. iii. The ledger account placed on record by the appellant is in-tune with claims of the appellant. iv. Within three years from the date of acknowledgment, the application is filed. Thus, it is within limitation. 7. Per contra, ld. counsel for the respondent has made the following submissions: i. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is an operational debt exceeding ₹ 1 lac as defined under Section 4 of the I B Code. In the application under Section 9 of the I B Code, it is mentioned that appellant has supplied ready-mix concrete material to respondent for their various construction sites from 30/09/2012 to 20/10/2014 for which various invoices were issued from time to time as against the total outstanding payment of ₹ 02,29,94,288/-. The respondent (Corporate Debtor) has paid a sum of ₹ 02,09,30,948/- and balance of ₹ 20,63,340/- is outstanding as on 11/11/2015. 11. The respondent denied this fact and according to him as per the ledger, the outstanding amount is only ₹ 70,165/-. In support of this contention, the respondent filed ledger account of appellant maintained by the respondent for period of 01/04/2012 to 20/03/2018. (See Page 97-102 of Appeal Paper Book) The respondent has produced its statement of accounts which clearly shows that the total amount outstanding against the appellant is ₹ 70,165/- which is less than ₹ 1 lac. The appellant has not pointed out any error in the statement of account filed by the respondent. 12. In rebuttal, the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to a dispute is pending between the parties. Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the dispute is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. 19. Now, we have considered whether there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties. As per the respondent, the appellant has delivered goods to Mayfair Corporate Park but erroneously sent invoices dated 15/07/2013 and 18/10/2013 bearing nos. 661 and 360 amounting to ₹ 05,33,120/- and 05,16,460/-. The respondent has no connection with Mayfair Corporate Park, therefore they have returned the invoices to the appellant. According to the appellant, the Mayfair Corporate Park is a construction project developed by Mayfair Spaces Ltd. (respondent) and thus they are associated entities. Therefore, the disputed invoices were rightly sent to the respondent. 20. As we have noted that the appellant is relying on the ledger account maintained by the respondent. In this ledger account the amount of disputed invoices are not shown. Therefore, we hold that there is no di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
