9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since the demand notice was not served at its registered office address, the same cannot be treated as valid service - It is settled position of law that service of demand notice at the Corporate Office address or any other address where the corporate debtor regularly is having its operations shall be deemed to be a valid and due delivery of notice - decided in favor of petitioner. Existence of debt and default or not - whether the petitioner proved the debt and the liability of the respondent-corporate debtor to pay the same? - HELD THAT:- The petitioner, inspite of the specific averments made by the respondent-corporate debtor in its reply, has not chosen to dispute the same by filing any rejoinder to the said reply. The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The application has been filed in Form 5 as prescribed in Rule 6(1) of the Rules. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, as stated in the petition, are that the petitioner-operational creditor is a Limited Liability company and is one of the top sports/entertainment production houses in India and is live production partner to many of India's new sports leagues whereas the corporate debtor is a LLP engaged in organising sports events all over India. The Operational Creditor provided services of live TV production of Season 1, Season 2 Season 3 of the Pro Wrestling League (PWL) held in India in 2015 to the corporate debtor for total consideration of ₹ 2,23,29,790/- (inclusive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Annexure-I. The notice was sent to the respondent-corporate debtor in Form 3 and Form 4 as prescribed in Rule 5(1) of the Rules and the same was delivered on 22.09.2018 [Annexure A-I (Colly)]. Breakup of the invoices raised and payment received by the operational creditor are attached as Annexure M. 5. Notice of this petition was issued to the Corporate Debtor on 11.01.2019 to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted. 6. Accordingly, the respondent-corporate debtor filed reply dated 07.08.20109 (Diary No. 3952 dt. 07.08.2019) stating that the corporate debtor did not receive the demand notice at its registered office. Also the consideration fixed for PWL-1 was ₹ 1,75,00,000/- and not ₹ 1,95,02,000/-. Further, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebtor. The respondent-corporate debtor while not denying the service of the demand notice at its Corporate Office address and Okhla office address submits that since the demand notice was not served at its registered office address, the same cannot be treated as valid service. The said submission cannot be accepted, in view of the settled position of law that service of demand notice at the Corporate Office address or any other address where the corporate debtor regularly is having its operations shall be deemed to be a valid and due delivery of notice. Accordingly, this issue is held in favour of the petitioner. 9. The second issue to be decided is whether the petitioner proved the debt and the liability of the respondent-corporate debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
