9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly replied to the demand notice of the Operational Creditor and the disputes between them are pointed out in its reply. In view of the Apex Court's observation and the existence of dispute between the parties, this Adjudicating Authority has to reject the application - application dismissed. - IBA/98/2020 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2021 - Sucharitha R., Member (J) And Anil Kumar B., Member (T) For the Appellant : B. Sarath Babu, Advocate For the Respondents : R. Chandra Mohan and Rohan Rajasekaran, Advocates ORDER Anil Kumar B., Member (T) 1. It is an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short, IB Code, 2016) r/w Rule 6 of the Insolvency and B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor and in this regard the Operational Creditor produced Debit Notes and Bank Account Statements. Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor failed to make the payment for the outstanding due of INR 22,75,514/- which comprises of the following: 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant, considering the default committed by the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor has issued a demand notice on 03.09.2019 in terms of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to the registered office of the Corporate debtor demanding the outstanding dues as on 03.09.2019 being INR 31,23,706/- (inclusive of an interest of INR 8,48,192/- @ 18% per annum on the default amount). In response to the demand notice, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the IB Code, 2016 is exhaustive in nature and covers a debt in relation to only goods, services, employment or dues to the government and any other claims cannot be passed off as an operational debt. b) The Corporate Debtor relied on the order dated 20.08.2020 passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 752 of 2019 wherein the Hon'ble NCLAT had ruled that advance payments even for supply of goods or services cannot be treated as operational debt . c) The only claim which can be categorised as operational debt is with respect to the invoice dated 21.10.2016 towards supply of goods for which an amount of INR 2,48,845/- is payable by the Corporate Debtor. However, it is hopelessly time-barred and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating 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. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
