9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 8 of the Code. Respondent has raised the 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. This petition fails and the same is rejected. - IB-797/(ND)/2020 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2021 - P.S.N. Prasad, Member (J) And Dr. V.K. Subburaj, Member (T) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 5,15,77,118/- is still remains due and payable. c. That the operational creditor in response to letter dated 22.11.2019 replied vide letter dated 29.11.2019 stating that the goods were delivered after the prior approval of the samples and since March 2019 till Nov 2019 the Corporate debtor has not raised any objection in respect to inferior or defective quality of goods. d. That the Operational Creditor had filed criminal complaint bearing FIR No. 0022/2020 dated 19.01.2020 registered under section 406, 420, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC at P.S Palam Vihar, Gurugram against the Director of the Corporate Debtor. e. The operational creditor sent a Demand Notice dated 19.12.2019 demanding payment of an unpaid operational debt a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otes dated 22.11.2019 were raised by the Corporate Debtor. i. Further it is submitted that the Corporate Debtor has failed to place on record any written communication or email from the month of March 2019 till 22.11.2019 complaining about the inferior or defective quality of the goods. 4. The Corporate Debtor in its reply to the application submits that: a. There is pre-existing dispute as the corporate debtor had raised the dispute from the applicant from March, 2019 and the demand has been raised by the applicant from December, 2019. b. That the Corporate Debtor and the applicant has entered into a Sale of Goods Agreement dated 21.12.2018 wherein the corporate debtor had to transfer ownership and deliver possession of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efective goods. e. That the corporate debtor vide letter dated 22.11.2019 intimated the applicant about the inferior quality of the goods supplied and of its defective nature along with the debit note list received from the overseas clients which ruined their goodwill and reputation. Copy of the debit note received by the respondent from its overseas clients are annexed alongwith. f. Further the applicant instead of paying the legitimate dues of the client, send a reply dated 29.11.2019 threatening the respondent that if the invoice amount is not paid, then the respondent shall have to face dire consequences. g. It is pertinent to mention that as per the clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the agreement dated 21.12.2018, it is mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us 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). 7. It is the case of the respondent that there has been pre-existing dispute as the corporate debtor had raised the dispute from the applicant from March, 2019 and the demand has been raised by the applicant from December, 2019. Also the respondent has placed on record letter dated 22.11.2019 intimated the applicant about the inferior qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
