9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditor have been highlighted. Relying upon the said e-mail dated 22.2.2019, the Corporate Debtor has denied its liability towards Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor has further stated that it has duly paid an amount of ₹ 46,05,375/- (being Base Value including Tax (GST) subject to TDS) and settled various invoices raised by the Operational Creditor - from the analysis it is convincing that Corporate Debtor has been able to establish existence of preexisting dispute between it and the Operational Creditor. The present Application filed under section 9 of the Code by Operational Creditor seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor is hereby dismissed. - IB-2931/ND/2019 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the corporate debtor. The Corporate Debtor has also paid part payment towards the services provided by the Operational Creditor. b. It is further submitted that the operational creditor vide email dated 30.11.2018 intimated the corporate debtor to clear all the outstanding. It is further stated that notice as per section 8 of IBC, 2016 was issued in form 3 by the operational creditor on 06.05.2019 for total amount of debt of ₹ 51,89,025/- and same was replied on 15.05.2019. Since no payment has been made by the corporate debtor, hence, the present petition. 3. The Corporate Debtor has also filed reply to the captioned petition and submitted that present petition is not maintainable u/s. 9 of IBC, 2016. It is submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said application. It is argued that the corporate debtor has made payments wherever found due and payment was put on hold due to quality issued and the work not done and same was communicated to the operational creditor and invoices are also raised for which no purchase order was issued by the corporate debtor and same was communicated vide email dated 22.02.2019 and all the above submissions were also highlighted in the reply to the demand notice. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the petition to initiate the CIRP of corporate debtor is liable to be dismissed. 4. The Petitioner has also filed the written submission and reiterated all the facts already discussed. In short, the petitioner has submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial on record and the documentary evidence filed does not establish that there was any dispute prior to issuance of the Section 8 Demand Notice or that there was any assertion of facts supported by any evidence to establish existence of a dispute.' It is submitted that email dated 22.02.2019, the same being the entire premise of respondent's case, was sent by the respondent as a response to the various emails sent by the petitioner to clear the admitted outstanding dues. The Petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Hyderabad Bench of this Adjudicating Authority in the matter of W. Boutique Properties LLP vs. Ninety-Nine Breweries Pvt. Ltd. [MANU/NC/6714/2019]. It was held issues having been raised as an afterthought can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amely, K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2018 (10) SCALE 256); Prowess International Pvt. Ltd. v. Parker Hannifin India Pvt. Ltd. (CA (AT) (Insol.) No. 89 of 2017) and Binani Industries Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda and Anr. (CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 of 2018). 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties at length, perused the application before us as well as the written submissions filed by the parties. The case laws relied upon by both sides have also been considered by us. It is seen that Operational Creditor has issued notice under section 8 of the Code on 6.5.2019 and the said notice has been duly replied by Corporate Debtor on 15.5.2019, and the present Application has been filed on 18.10.2019. While replying to the said n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues. In view of the size of the contract we expected much more value addition from iProgrammer over and above the brief given to you by VLCC. We expected that you would advise us on best practices and also bring in new features prevailing in other health apps. While the App could not be perfected by you, you also started charging maintenance etc. on top of that. You have raised certain invoices for which even we have not raised any PO to you. Similarly for Personal Care business, we were to provide 2 resources but they failed to provide full support to us. Some of the key issues are: 1. Systematic tracking of issues was missing. There was no MIS or analysis on repeat issues. 2. Teething issues reported continued to persi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
