9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2022 - Dr. Deepti Mukesh , Member ( J ) And Sumita Purkayastha , Member ( T ) ORDER Sumita Purkayastha , Member ( T ) 1. The present application is filed under the Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter, The Code) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter, Rules) by Shree Navrang Suppliers Private Limited, (hereinafter applicant ), with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Bajaj Appliances Limited (hereinafter, Respondent). 2. As per averments made in the petition, the corporate debtor has entered into an agreement for storing and selling its product by the operational creditor. It is submitted that the operational creditor had provided its services to the corporate debtor worth ₹ 24,41,344/- to which various bills were raised by the operational creditor in respect to the goods supplied to the applicant. Copies of the bill are annexed with the application. 3. The applicant sent demand notice under Section 8 of the code on 17.12.2018 calling upon the corporate debtor to pay the total amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and has miserably failed to meet its targets as stipulated in Agreement. As a result of the poor performance of the Applicant, the Respondent was constrained to warn and inform the Applicant of its failure to perform through numerous telephonic, conversations. However, as a pre-emptory measure to evade from its contractual obligation, the Applicant issued a false and frivolous legal notice dated 28.02.2018 through its counsel raising false and concocted claims and allegations which were duly disputed by the Respondent vide its reply dated 15.03.2018; wherein the Respondent raised the issue of poor performance and also pointed out the frivolity of the Applicant's claims which were not justified in terms of the Agreement. The Respondent duly pointed out that despite arranging for appropriate sales staff in terms of the Agreement, the Applicant had failed to meet its sales target leading to immense losses to the Respondent. Copies of the ledger accounts statements reflecting the expenses incurred by the Respondent on account of staff salaries are annexed. vi. It is further stated that the Applicant has failed to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated there is no debt against the respondent company much less ₹ 24,41,344/-. The letter specifically stated that the respondent have an outstanding amount and they shall start paying by 15th September' 2018 and the said letter dated 16.08.2018 admits the liability of the respondent. It further stated that if the company manages to appoint sales staff in Gujrat Region, then the Super Stockist shall take the goods and in case the applicant will again start the business with the respondent then the company shall consider the other points. The claim amount of ₹ 24,41,344/- has been arrived at after mutual discussions with the respondent's representatives. d. The claim of the applicant with regard to godown rent, salaries etc is not claimed by the applicant in the present application. Further it is stated that the parties had arrived at the agreement for doing business and their rights are governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement. Furthermore the respondent was supposed to employ sales person in Gujarat for which the applicant was appointed as a super stockiest. When the respondent had removed and/or stopped employing sales personnel in Gujrat, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held in the case of Mobilox Innovative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. 2018 1 SCC 353 inter-alia that: Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which required further investigation and that the 'dispute' is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application. (emphasis given). 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, since the corporate debtor already admitted its liability to clear its debt which is evident from note dated 16.08.2018, the present application is admitted. 12. The applicant has not proposed the name of an IRP, therefore, this bench appoints Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, as the Insolvency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
