9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute' which was raised by the corporate debtor on 31.03.2018 which is much prior to the issuance of demand notice dated 18.06.2019 served under section 8 of the Code. It is reiterated that the claim of the applicant has not been acknowledged by the corporate debtor and in fact there is a debit note issued by the corporate debtor with remarks for providing unsatisfactory services provided by them. Hence, the corporate debtor has to engage a third party to complete the work and the applicant was directed to remove its belongings from the project site w.e.f. June 2017. Thus, it is established on record that there is preexisting dispute between both the Applicant and Respondent. Hence, the Applicant failed to prove it's claim against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erbal order. d. The Operational Creditor submitted total bill dated 20.03.2017 of ₹ 20,16,633/- after consent and the approval from the Corporate Debtor on 14.04.2017. e. The Corporate Debtor made total payment of ₹ 15,91,960/- to the Applicant. The Amount of default w.e.f. 01.07.2017 is ₹ 4,24,673/- f. The Operational Creditor sent a Demand Notice dated 18.06.2019 demanding payment of an unpaid operational debt as per provisions under Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 via Speed Post. g. The Corporate Debtor replied to the demand notice dated 05.08.2019. 4. The Corporate Debtor has submitted his reply. The main objections raised by the corpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... range third party. f. It's been alleged by the Corporate Debtor that the dispute between the parties was settled much prior to the filing of the present application. In terms of the settlement, the Corporate Debtor instead of making full payment withheld the sum of ₹ 1,61,568/- in lieu of the deficient service provided by the Operational Creditor. And with respect to the same the debit note by way of 'Journal Voucher' dated 31.03.2018 has been provided to the Operational Creditor. 5. The applicant has submitted the rejoinder to reply sent by the corporate debtor. It is submitted by the applicant in the rejoinder, that the corporate debtor denied the claim of the applicant and raised the issue of defect in quality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority has to reject the application. In the present case the respondent has raised dispute with sufficient particulars. Besides the case records reveal that there was existence of dispute much prior to the issuance of notice under section 8 of the code. The claims of the dispute suggest the need of elaborate investigation. The moment there is existence of such a pre-existence dispute, the corporate debtor gets out of the clutches of the code. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and the principal laid down in the above citation, a conclusion can be drawn that there is 'Pre-existing dispute' which was raised by the corporate debtor on 31.03.2018 which is much prior to the issuance of demand notice dated 18.06.2019 serve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
