9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench, Ahmedabad in TP/MP/182 of 2019 [CP (IB) No. 591/9/NCLT/AHM/2019]. 2. The Application under Section 9 of IBC was filed by the Appellant-Operational Creditor against Respondent- "M/s. Girdharilal Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd."- the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant filed the Application against the Corporate Debtor claiming outstanding Operational Dues of Rs. 59,75,055/-. The Appellant claims that the Appellant had supplied Soya Bean to the Corporate Debtor as per the commercial arrangement and the supply was made as per Bills in July, 2015. 3. The Application under Section 9 of IBC of the Appellant came to be dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority holding that the debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. No material has been brought on record to show that name of the Corporate Debtor has been changed. In view of the fact that the Corporate Debtor has attached its Annual report for 2018-19 in the name and style of M/s. Girdharilal Sugar and Allied Industries Limited., the name of the Corporate Debtor remained the same. Therefore, the said payment could not be said to have been made by the Corporate Debtor. Even otherwise a paltry payment, assuming to have been made by the Corporate Debtor, cannot extend the limitation period for all debts as each supply is an independent contract. The said petition is, therefore, not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merit on consideration of facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments has pointed out that if the Section 9 Application is perused (Annexure A-4 Page 41 @ 44) the Appellant had pointed out in Part-IV of the Application that the last bill was of 28.07.2015 and that the Corporate Debtor made RTGS Payment on 24th November, 2017. The RTGS payment can be seen in the Bank Statement of ICICI Bank which is at Annexure A-4, Page 190. This Bank Statement issued to the Appellant shows at Entry No. 127 payment of Rs. 2 Lacs by the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant. The name used for the purpose of making the payment was "Premier Nutritions". We find considering the GST Registration Certificate, it must be said that the payment was made by the Corporate Debtor on 24th November, 2017. The Learned Counsel then submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority had observed as under: "2. (2) The Learned Counsel for the Operational Creditor appeared and narrated the basic facts. A query was raised as regard to the discrepancy in the number of Invoice and date of Invoice i.e. Invoice No. 304 was shown to have been issued on 25.07.2015, whereas, Invoice No. 274,275 and 276 have been issued on 28.07.2015. The Learned Counsel submitted that two sales counters were maintained and because of that it happened. Learned Counsel drawn our attention to Form 3 duly served on the Corporate Debtor. It was also brought to our notice that no dispute, had been raised and only plea which was taken by the Corporate Debtor was that they had discontinued this business and they could not pay the outstanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
