9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") of the Respondent for a claim of Rs. 20,82,383/- for the alleged default by the Respondent Company in clearing the dues of the Applicant. 2. The Applicant has averred as follows: i. The Applicant has been dealing with the Respondent for over 4 years. They respondent has been placing orders for Aluminum Alloys upon the Applicant on a regular basis through various purchase orders and the Applicant has been supplying the same. ii. Vide purchase order no. NEC/1803 dated 14.02.2017 the Applicant placed orders on the Applicant for supplying aluminum allows - rod and bar. The aforementioned goods were duly supplied to the Applicant as per the requirement vide invoice no. 55 dated 12.04.2017 and invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the remark "Stop Payment" on 20.06.2017 and 22.06.2017. Emails dated 27.06.2017, 07.07.2017, 17.07.2017 and 05.09.2017 were sent by the Applicant to the Respondent asking for release of outstanding amount. viii. On 06.09.2017 the representatives of the Applicant visited the premises of the Respondent to inspect the goods and even to collect the outstanding payments, however, no one attended the representatives of the Respondent nor did they show them the goods and after waiting for a long time the representatives had to return empty handed. ix. A demand notice dated 21.11.2018 was issued by the Applicant to the Respondent vide email dated 21.11.2018 and vide post. 3. The Respondent has made the following averments in its reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - to the Applicant. The two debit notes were sent to the Applicant vide letter dated 19.07.2017. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Applicant to say that there has never been any issue with respect to inferior quality of the goods supplied by the Applicant. The Applicant did not reflect this situation in its statement of account for the period 2017- 2018. 4. The Applicant in its rejoinder has contended as follows: i. The letter dated 19.07.2017 relied on by the Respondent is a doctored and fabricated document. This letter was neither written to the Applicant nor did the Respondent ever deliver the same to the Applicant's office. It is shocking that in the four years of business dealings between the parties, the parties have o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n issued and delivered to the Applicant by the Respondent with respect to invoice no. 103 dated 13.04.2017 at least. The debit note NECPL/17-18/025 is not taken into consideration as the details in the debit note do not match the details in the invoice. Thus, the Respondent has successfully shown that there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding the quality of goods supplied. 6. The Applicant has contended that the Respondent has admitted its debt by issuing cheques for payment of the same and thus, cannot claim that the debt is disputed. Although it's true that the Respondent issued cheques for payment of the debt and in normal course this can be taken as an acknowledgment of debt, here it has to be noted that the cheques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
