9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy Resolution Process against M/s. VHS Beverages Private Limited (hereinafter, Respondent/Corporate Debtor). 2. The details of transactions leading to the filing of this petition as averred by the petitioner are as follows: a. The case of the applicant, is that the corporate debtor is indebted to a sum of Rs. 3,19,82,394/- (Rupees Three Crores Nineteen Lakhs Eighty-Two Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-Four Only), towards supply of goods on various dates. The amount also includes the interest upto 31.03.2019 at the agreed rate in terms of the M.O.U executed between the parties dated 16.02.2018 along with unpaid accumulated interest of Rs. 10,09,417/- at the rate of 1.2% per annum on account of having purchase material from the operational c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed reply to the present petition raising the following objections against the admission of the present petition; i. It is stated that the applicant had supplied faulty/bad quality of material to the corporate debtor and on various occasions respondent have mailed to the applicant regarding the material quality. Further it is submitted that vide email dated 05.07.2018 and 07.07.2018 the respondent again communicated to the applicant about, the quality of the material supplied by the applicant, however till date the applicant has not taken any step with respect to the same nor replied to the emails sent, by the corporate debtor. With respect to the bad quality of material supplied, the corporate debtor has suffered huge losses in the bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llectively referred as "Xalta Group". From the perusal of the clauses of the MOU it is seen that respondent was only liable to pay Rs. 1.05 Crores to the applicant, which is different from the claimed amount of the applicant. 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent and submitted as follows: a) The case of the applicant, is that on the receipt of emails dated 05.07.2018 and 07.07.2018 immediately officials of the operational creditor visited the corporate debtor and satisfy the corporate debtor related to the query raised, consequent thereto the material was utilized by the corporate debtor. Therefore, there is no pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding defective-goods. b) It is submitted that the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of fact unsupported, by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application." (emphasis given). 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, since the corporate debtor already signed a MOU admitting its liability, the claim, of applicant deserves to be allowed. 10. The applicant; has not proposed the name of an IRP, therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
