9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever there is existence of real dispute, the IBC provisions cannot be invoked. The instant case is not a fit case to initiate CIRP as prayed for and thus it is liable to be rejected - Petition dismissed. - C.P. (IB) No. 123/BB/2017 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2018 - Hon'ble Shri Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Shri Ashok Kumar Mishrc:, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner: Shri Shrishail Na.valgund, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri B.N Prakash and Shri Dharma Tej, Advocates ORDER Per: Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (J) 1. The Company Petition bearing C.P (IB) No. 123/BB/2017 is filed by Mr. Ajay Bhandari, Petitioner/ Operational Creditor, u/ s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 6 of I B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, by inter-alia seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of Pearson Education Services Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), on the that Corporate Debtor has failed to pay an outstanding amount of ₹ 64,21,380/ (Rupees Sixty four Lakhs Twenty one thousand three hundred and eighty only). 2. Brief facts of the case, which ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from an end customer by name Kalgidhar Trust (Akal Academy). Three orders were secured by petitioner for the respondent vis-a-vis Kalgidhar Trust (Akal Academy) i.e., order 1 for 100 classrooms on 28/09/2011; order 2 for 334 classrooms on 24/06/2012 and order 3 for 600 classrooms on 26/03/2013. Although the Respondent has made some commission payments to the Petitioner against the first two orders, the balance payments in relation to the first two orders and all payments towards the third order were remained unpaid. The debt in question is due to the Operational Creditor for having rendered services in procuring Order 1, order 2 and order 3 for the Corporate Debtor from Kalgidhar Trust (Akal Academy). The value of order 1 is ₹ 2,10,00,000/- of 6% of this value excluding taxes @ 8%, which works out to ₹ 16,80,000/-. This amount of ₹ 11,59,200/- was agreed to be paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor in 60 equal monthly instalments of ₹ 19,320/- commencing from October 2011. Similarly, the value of order 2 is ₹ 6,37,74,000/- of 6% of this value excluding taxes @ 8%, which works out to ₹ 51,01,920/-. This amount of ₹ 35,20,32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved money from its clients or not, as payment involves pro-rata subject to receipt of payment from its customer. It is asserted that there is no due from the Respondent, and all the payments has been duly paid as and when it became due as per the Agreements. 3) It is stated that the Respondent is a commercially solvent, and it is a going concern and has 687 employees on its rolls as on July, 2018. It is providing educational support services to various schools in the country and some of schools namely Shishya BEML Public School and Johnson Grammar School. It is also carrying on business of developing and providing computer based education etc. As per the Balance sheet as on 31/03/2017, the Company is having current assets worth of ₹ 642,33,78,830/- and as at 31/03/2018, is ₹ 724,91,51,813/- and further the Reserves and Surplus as at 31/03/2017 is ₹ 360,68,97,414/- and as on 31/03/2018 it is ₹ 643,68,92,996/-. Therefore, the Respondent Company is commercially solvent Company. Since the Respondent has ready paid due amount to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of Channel partner Agreements in question, the alleged claim of the petitioner was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is making claims even basing on un-signed agreement dated 26.03.2013. The petitioner himself stated that the respondent has unjustly refused to hand over signed copy of third agreement. Even as per the contention of petitioner, debt in question fell due on various dates on and after October, 2011, July 2012, and April, 2013. However, this petition was filed on 2nd November, 2017. There is no explanation at all as to how the case is within limitation apart from there is no substantial proof in support of alleged claims. There are three legal notices dated 12.09.2015, 22.3.2017 and 08.06.2017 by raising several contentions with regards alleged claims. As stated supra, as early as 12.09. 2015, the petitioner got issued first legal notice calling upon the respondent to pay total amount of ₹ 61,34,109, and the same was totally denied by the respondent, through its detailed reply dated 4th December, 2015, and the subsequent claims made in two demand notices issued by the petitioner were also disputed. 8. As per details furnished by the respondent, as briefly stated supra, the respondent company is commercially solvent and going concern having 687 employees on its rolls, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
