9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the Operational Creditor has appeared before Court of Law on behalf of Debtor. Though it is accepted position that the Operational Creditor was engaged by the Debtor for his Legal services, it is crystal clear that for the services provided from Aug. 2005 to Jan. 2011 the Operational Creditor has duly received the fixed Professional Fees by the Debtor. And further, for the period of 2012-2014 he has received the amount of ₹ 3,60,000/- after deduction of ₹ 40,000 as TDS as full and final payment for his Services - the Debt claimed in this Petition/Application does not in existence and in our conscientious view this Petition/Application does not survive in the eyes of Law and deserves Rejection. The Operational Creditor h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Creditor has claimed amount of ₹ 46.81,875/-. 4. Brief Background : 4.1. The Operational Creditor is a professional firm engaged in providing Legal service provider to his clients. And the Debtor is a Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in various businesses such as construction, entertainment, reality, distribution, food products etc. 4.2. The Operational Creditor had rendered his legal services in the past to the Debtor and for those services the Operational Creditor has rendered an invoice for a Bill amount of ₹ 46.81.875/-. 4.3. As per the claim of Operational Creditor the said bill amount is overdue since the year 2011 till 31.03.2016. Hence, the Operational C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.06.2017 but thereafter the Debtor had not replied to the said Notice. Hence, after lapse of time prescribed by the Code the Operational Creditor has filed this Petition/Application as per the provisions of the Code. However, the Debtor has filed a Reply to the Petition/Application and contested the Amount claimed on the ground that the Debt itself does not exist. 5.6. It is further submitted that, the averments made by the Debtor in his Reply is denied by the Operational Creditor in his Rejoinder. Further that, the averments without any sufficient evidences. 5.7. It is finally submitted that, the raised Invoice clearly establishes that there is Debt and the non-payment by the Debtor clearly establishes that there is a Default on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the professional fee of the Operational Creditor. 6.8. It is further stated that, the Operational Creditor had accepted the said cheque and had also furnished the receipt dated 20.06.2014, stating therein that, Dear Sirs, RECEIVED WITH THANS TODAY THE FULL PAYMENT TILL DATE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES/Dues OF ₹ 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Only) vide your cheque payment of ₹ 3,60,000/- after deducting TDS of ₹ 40,000/- vide vour account payee cheque No. 104887 dated 20.06.2014 drawn on PNB, Juhu Branch, Mumbai, in favour of Hasmukh N. Shah. Copies of the said Cheque and the receipt is annexed along with the Reply by the Debtor. 6.9. It is further stated that, in light of above submissions it is clear that the Debtor is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional Creditor has failed to prove that the said professional fee had not been drawn by him as reflected in the Ledger Account of the Debtor. 7.6. That, though it is accepted position that the Operational Creditor was engaged by the Debtor for his Legal services, it is crystal clear that for the services provided from Aug. 2005 to Jan. 2011 the Operational Creditor has duly received the fixed Professional Fees by the Debtor. And further, for the period of 2012-2014 he has received the amount of ₹ 3,60,000/- after deduction of ₹ 40,000 as TDS as full and final payment for his Services. 7.7. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Debt claimed in this Petition/Application does not in existence and in our conscientious view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
