9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e old Petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court a Notice was issued on 03.03.2015 under the provisions of Section 433(e) of the Companies Act. That Notice was a legal Notice stating all the facts of the Debt in question along with requisite evidences such as Invoices etc. to establish the genuineness of the Debt. Notification No. GSR 1119(E) dated 07.12.2016 notified for Transfer of Proceedings Rules, 2016 is worth mentioning. Considering the Notification issued and on comparing with the provisions of the Code it is logical to hold that there is no legal requirement to issue Notices of Demand repeatedly. The duplicity of issuance of Notice of Demand is not a requirement of Law. he Debt and the occurrence of default is esta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to conduct the Franchise from a mutually agreed space from Respondent Company's Store for the purpose of selling the GAS Products on the terms and conditions set out in the said MoU. The MoU was initially for a period of three years commencing from 01.08.2011. The Petitioner alleged that during the period of the said MoU the Corporate Debtor was followed up regularly for the overdue payments; however, the Respondent Debtor was not prompt in settling the dues. The Petitioner further alleged that in the month of November, 2014 the representative of the Petitioner Creditor brought to the notice of the Debtor Company a discrepancy in Stock of 224 pieces of the products as on 27.11.2014. The Respondent Debtor informed the Petitioner that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 22,71,110/- inclusive of Principal + Interest @ 18% p.a. 5. Upon transfer of the Petition to NCLT, Mumbai Bench, the Petitioner sent Form 5 dated 16.06.2017. The same was delivered upon the Corporate Debtor on 07.07.2017. 6. From the side of the Respondent it is stated that Form 5 was received on 07.07.2017 whereas Form 3 Demand Notice dated 12.07.2017 was received on 17.7.2017 and vehemently argued that the Demand Notice was served upon the Respondent after the Application was filed by the Petitioner; therefore, the Petition is required to be rejected. Respondent pleaded that the Petitioner failed to comply with the Statutory requirements of serving Demand Notice First and after 10 days thereafter only the Application in For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he records transferred from the Hon ble High Court and the Petition is to be Admitted U/s. 7, 8 or 9 of the Code. The other admitted position is that while the old Petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court a Notice was issued on 03.03.2015 under the provisions of Section 433(e) of the Companies Act. That Notice was a legal Notice stating all the facts of the Debt in question along with requisite evidences such as Invoices etc. to establish the genuineness of the Debt. In this regard, a Notification No. GSR 1119(E) dated 07.12.2016 notified for Transfer of Proceedings Rules, 2016 is worth mentioning. Considering the Notification issued and on comparing with the provisions of the Code it is logical to hold that there is no legal re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
