9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rror has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority by not placing reliance on account confirmation document dated 01.04.2017 for giving extension of the limitation to the Operational Creditor. The allegation of supply back of the material is being disputed. The claim of supply back of the material was raised by the Corporate Debtor on 05.03.2017 in response to meeting dated 18.02.2017. The notice under Section 8 was issued by the Operational Creditor on 20.03.2019 i.e. much after the claim of the Corporate Debtor to supply back the material which was in 2017 i.e. two years thereafter. The Operational Creditor disputing the claim of supply back of the similar material itself is a dispute which is clearly mentioned in the reply notice of the Corporate Debtor. These issues could not have been gone into the proceeding under Section 9 and there being pre-existing dispute between the parties the Application under Section 9 filed by the Appellant has rightly been rejected. No case has been made out to interfere with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting Section 9 Application - Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 318, 319, 320 & 323 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that payments were made to the Applicants against the material supplied and Corporate Debtor had called a meeting on 18.02.2017 in presence of reputed persons of the district where Applicants had proposed to supply back the quantity of similar material which the Applicant had supplied to the Corporate Debtor in consequence of which on 05.03.2017 material was supplied back. Corporate Debtor mentioned that after receipt of demand notice, notice of dispute was issued by the Corporate Debtor, it was pleaded that facts of supply back can be proved with the corresponding VAT/GST, Excise and Income Tax etc. The Corporate Debtor after looking to the account confirmation paper dated 01.04.2017 lodged a First Information Report against the Operational Creditor alleging fabrication of document dated 01.04.2017 on which First Information Report has been lodged and criminal proceedings are pending. 2. Learned Adjudicating Authority by the impugned judgment rejected the Application under Section 9 on two grounds. Firstly, the Application is barred by time since the document of acknowledgment is being disputed the criminal proceedings are pending against the same and secondly, there are pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute was issued by the Corporate Debtor after receipt of the demand notice where details of dispute and re-supply of the materials have been specifically pleaded. 5. We have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Application under Section 9 holding it to be barred by time. It was the case of the Appellant- Operational Creditor itself that amount fell due on 10.09.2016 which is mentioned in Section 8 notice. The Operational Creditor before the Adjudicating Authority claim extension of limitation on the basis of account confirmation dated 01.04.2017 allegedly signed by one Devpal the Accountant of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor in reply has disputed the claim of the Appellant and has filed a criminal complaint regarding forgery of the document dated 01.04.2019 on which First Information Report has been registered and criminal proceedings are pending. When the very basis of the claim of the Operational Creditor that their Application is within time is under cloud and is disputed by the Corporate Debtor, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority by not pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representation, Defamation and Criminal breach of trust. 10. It is relevant to notice that the reply notice of the Corporate Debtor dated 24.04.2019 was responded by the Appellant by way of letter dated 02.07.2019, response has been filed as Annexure A-10 filed by the Appellant herself. The claim of the Corporate Debtor that the materials have been supplied back has been denied. In reply to paragraph 6(d) where the Corporate Debtor has categorically pleaded regarding supply back of the similar materials, it has been answered by the Operational Creditor in paragraph 6(a)-(e) which is to the following effect:- 6(a)-(e). That the contents of para 6(a) to 6(e) under response are blatant lie and same has been illegally manufactured to falsely and malafidely create dispute in the case hence, the contents of para 6(a) to para 6(e) are wrong and vehemently denied. It is submitted that your client is put to strict proof thereof to corroborate the false and frivolous averments made under the paras under response. It is further submitted that your client have forged and manufactured false bills, ledger accounts etc. in order to achieve their malafide and deceitful designs. That the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
