9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant referred to earlier Order of withdrawal Annexure A/3 where the Tribunal recorded that Learned Counsel for the Operational Creditor submitted that he has instructions from the Corporate Debtor to withdraw the matter . On basis of such noting in the earlier Order (which could even be typing error) the argument is tried to be made that there was offer of settlement. We do not accept such submissions. It would be strange that the Opposite Party gives instructions to the other side and other side on instructions from the Opposite Party withdrawing petition. Even otherwise, when present Application under Section 9 is filed, the earlier Reply Notice which was sent by the Corporate Debtor discloses Pre-existing dispute. The Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... monstrates that this Applicant was permitted to withdraw a similar application filed for the self same cause of action without liberty to file fresh application. As such, the application is not maintainable. Hence dismissed. However, no order as to cost. 3. It appears that the Appellant had earlier issued Notice under Section 8 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I B, Code in short) on 04th April, 2018 (See Diary No. 22727- Additional Documents- Page 30). Thereafter on 21.04.2018, the Corporate Debtor M/s. Bengani Udyog Pvt. Ltd. had sent Reply (Annexure A/2- Additional Documents- Page 48) raising disputes that the concerned MoU was forcibly got executed and that the dues were already recovered and claimed that the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Impugned Order is not sustainable as fresh notice under section 8 of I B, Code was given and thus there was a fresh cause of action. It is stated that when earlier the Application was filed, the Corporate Debtor had told the Appellant that it would settle the dues but subsequently the dues were not settled and hence fresh notice under section 8 of I B, Code was given and hence there was a fresh cause of action. 7. We have gone through the earlier Application under Section 9 which was filed and the new Application which was filed under Section 9 of I B, Code. Both of the Applications referred to the same amount and similar facts are averred. In the new Application under Section 9 Annexure A/6-Page 47 Statement of Facts stated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced above does not give any support to the Appellant. 10. Even otherwise, when present Application under Section 9 is filed, the earlier Reply Notice which was sent by the Corporate Debtor discloses Pre-existing dispute. The Section 9 Application claims debt relying on Ledger Account of Appellant itself. This read with the Notices on record shows various disputes pre-existing between parties. That being so, even if one is to look into merits in the alternative, the Application under Section 9 does not show that it deserves to be admitted. A. For the above reasons, there is no substance in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. B. The Appellant would be at liberty to pursue remedy, if any, in any other Forum if permissible by Law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
