9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those as originally approved which clearly shows that the invoices were not acknowledge by the Corporate Debtor. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5th floor of the original application were counter signed by the Architect i.e., M/S Plumb Design appointed by the Corporate Debtor. 4. Further it is contended by the Operational Creditor that since the Corporate Debtor failed to made payments of outstanding dues of ₹ 99,69,776/- in respect of 2nd Floor, the Operational Creditor has issued the demand notice dated 17.01.2020 which was also replied by the counsel for the Corporate Debtor vide reply dated 27.01.2020. 5. Further the Operational Creditor has submitted that the Corporate Debtor did not paid the final amount of the Operational Creditor in respect of the 2nd Floor of ₹ 97,79,049/- therefore, finding no other remedy the Operational Creditor has filed the present p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 14.12.2019, at 10:49 A.M., 14.12.2019 at 3.31. P.M., 26.06.2019, 18.06.2019 and various other correspondence which believe the alleged claim of the alleged operation creditor. The alleged operational creditor has illegally tried to show that the alleged claim is allegedly finally determined or agreed or have been calculated as per the fact mentioned above, which in fact not correct. The alleged invoice is not as per the agreed rate and the dispute/objection has been raised. The discount agreed has not been taken into consideration in the alleged invoice. iv. The 2nd floor work was to be completed on or before 10.01.2019. The self-serving forged and fabricated certificate of completion was manufactured by none other than the oper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor. However, it is brought on record that credit of payment of ₹ 60 lakhs are already admitted to have been received by the alleged Operational Creditor and as such the alleged Operational Creditor cannot deny that a sum of ₹ 60 lakhs have not been received. 8. The petitioner has filed its rejoinder and has submitted that the contents of reply should not be deemed to be admitted for non-traverse. The Operational Creditor has submitted that the Corporate Debtor has never raised any notice of dispute in terms of Section 5(6) of the IBC Code with respect to the outstanding amount, prior to the issuance of the demand notice dated 17.01.2020 by the Operational Creditor. 9. Heard the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application. (emphasis given). 13. It is the case of the respondent that there has been pre-existing dispute between the parties prior to the issuance of the alleged demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
