9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orate debtor on using the same supplied materials. There was existence of dispute much prior to the issuance of notice under Section 8 of the Code. Respondent has raised dispute with sufficient particulars. The amount of claim raised by the applicant clearly falls within the ambit of disputed claim. The claim of dispute suggests the need of elaborate investigation. In the facts it is reiterated that existence of genuine dispute in the present case cannot be ruled out. As per Section 9 (5) (ii) (d) of the Code provides that adjudicating authority shall reject the application if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility - Petition is thus rejected. - IB-3060 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h interest of ₹ 7,08,630/- thereon @ 21% per annum tantamount to ₹ 46,53,861/-. c. That since August 2018, the operational creditor repeatedly-demanded the said outstanding payment through watsapp and emails and for the first time vide email dated 20.05.2019, the corporate debtor disputed its liability to pay the debt on the ground that the material supplied being defective. d. That the operational creditor sent various reminders, follow ups to which the corporate debtor failed to pay the due debts as per the agreed terms of the payment. e. The operational creditor sent a Demand Notice dated 05.08.2019 demanding payment of an unpaid operational debt as per provisions under Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e substandard materials/goods supplied by the operational creditor, the machinery of the corporate debtor suffered various technical problems and had suffered huge monetary expenses in repairing the same. 5. Heard the parties and perused the case records. 6. In respect of definition of dispute in the Code, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Mobilox Innovative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. 2018 1 SCC 353 inter-alia that: Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which required further investigation and that the 'dispute' is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 8 of the Code. Respondent has raised dispute with sufficient particulars. The amount of claim raised by the applicant clearly falls within the ambit of disputed claim. The claim of dispute suggests the need of elaborate investigation. In the facts it is reiterated that existence of genuine dispute in the present case cannot be ruled out. 9. As per Section 9 (5) (ii) (d) of the Code provides that adjudicating authority shall reject the application if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. 10. For the reasons stated above this petition fails and the same is rejected. 11. We make it clear that any observations made in this order shall not be cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
