9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 26.11.2019. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the Prima facie view that there exists dispute prior to issuance of Demand Notice. Therefore, having arrived at a finding that there exists prior dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent, this Tribunal is not traversing into the merits of the case and as such, there is no illegality in the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 04.03.2021. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 107 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2021 - [Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial) And [Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. K. Senguttuvan, Advocate JUDGMENT ( VIRTUAL MODE ) Per: Kanthi Narahari Member (T) (1) The present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transfer letters and invoices thereby acknowledging the liability in respect of the said transfer made in favour of the Respondent. Further, the Respondent addressed an e-mail dated 17.10.2019 to the Appellant seeking details of Bank Account to which the money may be transferred by the Respondent to the Appellant. The Appellant furnished Bank Account details through e-mail dated 18.10.2019. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent committed default and the Appellant issued demand notice in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 demanding payment of outstanding dues as on 25.09.2018 being ₹ 1,29,70,574/-. The Respondent replied to the said demand notice. Having committed default, the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered to be a Goods as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. (7) This Tribunal does not have any contradictory stand that the goods delivered to the Respondent/Corporate Debtor does not fall under the category of Operational Debt . However, we have to examine whether any dispute existing between the Appellant and the Respondent/Corporate Debtor prior to issuance of Demand Notice under Section 8 of the I B Code 2016 as it is mandatory under the said Code. It is the case of the Appellant that the amounts were remitted into the Personal Accounts of the Employees instead remitting the amounts to the Bank Account of the Appellant/Operational Creditor. (8) The Respondent issued Notice dated 26.10.2019 annexed as A4 at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Companies representatives along with a covering letter mentioning receipt of entire payment. The said certificate were sold by my clients on different dates for a value of ₹ 10703939 (Rupees One Crore Seven Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Nine Only) which is 1.73% lesser than the face value of the certificate. As T. Kumaresan one of our directors was the only person liaising with you we had also made all the payments upon his instructions. (9) In the Notice, the Respondent, admitted that the certificates were sold by the Respondent on different dates for a value of ₹ 1,07,03,939/- lesser than the face value of the certificates. It is also stated at Para 4 of the Notice that (1) Mr. T. Kumaresan, Director was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2019 is not inconsonance with the IBC 2016 as no invoices were annexed with the Demand Notice. Findings :- (13) From the perusal of the Legal Notice dated 26.10.2019 issued by the Respondent, it is clear that the Respondent had raised a dispute with regard to the payments made to the Appellant. Further, the Appellant also replied to the Legal Notice issued by the Respondent on 15.11.2019 denying the contents as made in the Legal Notice. The above events are prior to issuance of Demand Notice dated 26.11.2019. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the Prima facie view that there exists dispute prior to issuance of Demand Notice. Therefore, having arrived at a finding that there exists prior dispute between the Appellant and the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
