9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice was raised in favour of Respondent and not C K are properly perused. Furthermore, part payment is made by the Respondent and not by C K. The respondent has deducted TDS and same is evident from Form 26AS and the Operational Creditor has deposited GST amount of ₹ 37,08,000/- on the entire amount of invoice in favour of the respondent - the respondent was not merely acting as an agent rather it was acting as the principal and hence is liable to pay the amount to the petitioners which it defaulted in part. As a result, this authority is inclined to initiate the CIR Process of Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the present petition is admitted. Application admitted - moratorium declared. - IB-953/ND/2020 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2022 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against invoice No. PAS/2018/01/337 dated 21.01.2019, a sum of ₹ 2,43,08,000/- was due and payable, however, the Corporate Debtor has made only part payment of ₹ 1,09,00,000/- while balance of ₹ 1,34,08,000/- remains unpaid. b. It is submitted that Notice in Form 3 was issued by the Operational Creditors on 27.01.2020 through courier and scanned copy of the same was sent through email on 29.01.2020. It is stated that more than ten days later, on 11.02.2020, a reply was received from the Corporate Debtor. The reply does not disclose the existence of any dispute prior to the receipt of the notice in Form 3. The receipt of invoice and its part payment is not denied by Corporate Debtor but a defense was taken that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluding 'Paras Art Studio' and payments were to be made by Corporate Debtor only on instructions of the C K, hence, the payment was made on instructions of C K. It is further submitted that in the meantime CIR Process initiated against C K by the Mumbai Bench of this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 22.10.2019 and pursuant to that Operational Creditor also raised claim against the said company, however, due to inability of the petitioners to sue C K, it issued a defective demand notice for seeking balance payment of ₹ 1,34,08,000/-. It is worthwhile to mention that the Corporate Debtor also filed its claim before the IRP/RP of C K. It is further contended that no debt is payable by the corporate debtor to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount has been taken by the Respondent. Therefore, it is clear from the above facts that the respondent is not merely acting as agent of C K. It is also argued that the respondent has submitted the entire claim before the IRP/RP in respect of services rendered by the respondent from the downstream service rendered by the respondent to C K which was obtained by the respondent from the downstream service providers including the OC, therefore, the IRP/RP has not admitted the claim of Operational Creditors. 5. Both Petitioners and Respondent have filed the written submissions and reiterated all the facts as already discussed above, therefore, are not repeated again. 6. We have perused the pleadings and heard the arguments advanced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect to the condition that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against such an IRP named who may act as an IRP in relation to the CIRP of the Corporate debtor and specific consent should be filed in Form 2 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rule, 2016 and make disclosures as required under IBBI (insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 within a period of one week from the date of this order. 8. We direct the Operational Creditor to deposit a sum of ₹ 2 lacs with the Interim Resolution Professional, namely Mr. Nitish Kumar Chugh, to meet out the expense to perform the functions assigned to her in accordance with regulation 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
