9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncluded that there was dispute as defined in Section 5(6) of the Code and rejected the Application. On going through the claims being made by the Appellant and claims being made by the Respondents and it appears also that the averments and counter averments required trial which is not possible in the jurisdiction of Section 9 of IBC. Whether or not similar stamp of the Company was being used by the Appellant, which is seen in the debit notes, would be matter of evidence. There has to be prima facie material to doubt a document as forged or fabricated if the same is to be ignored. It is stated that after the Impugned Order was passed, with observations as seen above in para 33 of the Impugned Order, subsequently, the Appellant has file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporate Debtor. The Application came to be rejected and hence, the present Appeal. 2. In the Appeal, the Appellant has arrayed the Directors of the Corporate Debtor as Respondents 2 to 4. 3. According to the Appellant, the Corporate Debtor had been purchasing goods from the Appellant Operational Creditor since 2012 and Corporate Debtor (hereafter referred as Respondent) had a running account with the Appellant. The Appellant used to supply the goods and was raising invoices. Respondent used to make lump sum payments for the goods supplied with the understanding that payments would be adjusted against the first outstanding invoices. 4. The Appellant claims that it has supplied goods vide Invoice Nos.0243 and 0244 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Respondent Company. The Reply makes reference to the same. Respondent is disputing the claim that there are dues recoverable. According to the Respondent, entire amount on account of 4 invoices referred was discharged by way of debit note bearing date 31st March, 2015 for an amount aggregating to ₹ 24,54,000/- on account of a rate difference and debit note dated 15th April, 2016 for an amount aggregating to ₹ 60,00,000/- on account of short supply. The Respondent has annexed the copy of debit notes as Annexure A and B to its Reply (Diary No.15744). According to the Respondent, the Appellant claims that it received these debit notes only when the Respondent sent Reply dated 28.12.2018 (Page 94 of the Appeal) in response t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there were no dues and only C Forms were sought. The Respondent has filed copy of the e-mail at Annexure D. Respondent claims that in spite of exchange of e-mails, amounts were never claimed till Section 8 Notice was sent in December, 2018. 6. We have heard Counsel for both sides on above lines. They have also filed written submissions. Parties are making various averments against each other on the basis of the correspondence available on record. We have gone through the record and perused the Impugned Order also. On one side, the Operational Creditor is claiming to have supplied aluminium foils and referring to the 4 invoices is claiming that there were dues outstanding and that as C Forms had not been supplied, further d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the first time with the reply dated 28.12.2018. 33. Ordinarily acknowledgements bearing signature and seal of a company are sufficient evidence of receipt. On one hand respondent has not placed any proof of dispatch/delivery of debit notes to the petitioner and on the other hand the petitioner could not confirm whether any FIR was filed or any action was initiated when the alleged unauthorized and illegal use of the seal of the company came to their knowledge. No FIR in this respect has been placed on record. 34. These are matters of trial and enquiry. Tribunal in the present proceeding cannot go into roving enquiry into the disputed claims made by the parties. This is not the forum to examine and adjudicate as to which porti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich could not be overruled and was of the view that there was substance and plausible contention in pleadings of both sides which require investigation. The Impugned Order shows that with the limited jurisdiction to examine the claim and defence, the Adjudicating Authority concluded that there was dispute as defined in Section 5(6) of the Code and rejected the Application. 9. We have also gone through the claims being made by the Appellant and claims being made by the Respondents and it appears to us also that the averments and counter averments required trial which is not possible in the jurisdiction of Section 9 of IBC. Whether or not similar stamp of the Company was being used by the Appellant, which is seen in the debit notes, wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
