9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r referred to as "the Code"] read with Rule 6 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"], as operational creditor/applicant. 2. The applicant/operational creditor is a private limited company having its registered office at New Delhi having identification No. U24239DL1999PTC098083. 3.The respondent/corporate debtor is a private limited company registered on 19.09.2010 under the provisions. Companies Act and having identification No. U24230DN2010PTC000338 and having registered office at Daman. Authorised share capital of the respondent company is Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and paid up share capital is Rs. 65,00,000/-. 4. The applicant/operational creditor has sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding amount as referred to above, the corporate debtor is indebted to the applicant a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- along with the agreed quarterly interest. According to the applicant, corporate debtor is also liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amounts @ 12% per annum from December, 2017 till the actual date of realisation. 6. It is further stated by the applicant that various emails and reminders were sent to the corporate debtor demanding payment for the services rendered, however, corporate debtor did not adhere to the agreement. Therefore, the operational creditor was compelled to issue demand notice. in form 3 dated 21.08.2019. That, instead of complying with the terms of the demand notice, undated reply was received by the operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding "no dispute". That, the statement of ledger attached to the demand notice issued by the petitioner is not supported by all invoices of commission due from respondent. That, all the payment towards commission on sales and interest on security deposit are paid to the petitioner. That, the petitioner has not handed over the stock to the respondent. Findings: 10. Heard advocates appearing for both the sides and perused the documents annexed to the application/reply. 11. On perusal of the records it is found that the demand notice dated 21.08.2019 is issued by one Mr. Naveen Jain claiming to be Director of the applicant company. Demand notice, a pre-requisite under section 8 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for filing the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s gross violation of the agreement entered into between the parties and bad in the eye of law. More so, when the objective of Code is resolution not liquidation. Therefore, the "Code" cannot be used as an arm twisting weapon. Further, the applicant has admitted that it had paid a sum of Rs. 1.00 crore towards security which is refundable. 13. Under the facts and circumstances as discussed above the petition is not maintainable and bad in the eyes of law. 14. In the result, company petition No. CP (IB) 784 of 2019 stands dismissed and disposed of without cost. However, this will not stand in the way of the Petitioner approaching the appropriate forum seeking to enforce its claim against the Respondent, as this petition has been dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
