9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant as reflected in the emails. The total picture emerging from pleading and documents is that there has been a lot of discussions, replacement of goods and issue of mismatch of goods as earlier as email dated 27.08.2018 onwards. The Respondent has also filed copy of email dated 22.02.2019 in respect of loss faced and dissatisfaction of customer due to mismatch of casting valves. Further, by email dated 07.03.2019, the respondent has sought clarification regarding delayed supply and replacement of wrong supply. Application dismissed. - IBA/1079/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2021 - R. Sucharitha, Member (J) And B. Anil Kumar, Member (T) For the Appellant : Dhiren R. Dave, Advocate For the Respondents : T. Durga Prasad, Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - III of the Application discloses the fact that the Operational Creditor has not proposed the name of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and left it to the discretion of this Tribunal to appoint the IRP. 5. Part - IV of the Application gives the details of the operational debt as well as the circumstances which led to the default of the operational debt by the Corporate Debtor. A perusal of the same posits the fact that the Operational Creditor has supplied various type of Steel Cast to Corporate Debtor and for which invoices were raised along with bills with interest at 18% P.A. Default starts after 30 days of the invoice date. However, the last payment received on 15.02.2019 as per the ledger is shown in Page 49 of the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to be made to the Respondent as per despatch plan. 7. It is further submitted that the Respondent honoured its commitment of the first payment of ₹ 2 lakh on 15.02.2019. The supplier is required to despatch some material to reach the Respondent on 20.02.2019 as per the agreed terms. 2nd payment of ₹ 7 lakh out of the settled amount of ₹ 12 lakh was to be made on 19.02.2019. Since the respondent had not received any supply of material as agreed by the Applicant, the Respondent had no other option but to withhold the payment. 8. In the rejoinder filed by the Applicant, it is stated that the Minutes of the meeting dated 13.02.2019 placed (at Page 68 to 71 of the reply) is concocted and forged document. All the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r due to mismatch of casting valves. Further, by email dated 07.03.2019, the respondent has sought clarification regarding delayed supply and replacement of wrong supply. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9405 of 2017 in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs Kirusa Software Private Limited held as follows: 40. 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
