9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply of material and demand for payment prior to filing of the Application are the reasons which have been relied and the Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that the bill raised is forged and fabricated and has been raised only for initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor who is the builder - it is also noticed that bill as relied by the Appellant does not contain any GST number which reaffirms the view that bill was a bogus bill prepared only for filing the Section 9 Application. The submission of the Counsel for the Appellant is agreed upon that the quantum of the amount may not be relevant for taking a decision either to reject or admit the Application but on the sequence of the events and the facts which were before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be inferred that admittedly there is no agreement entered into between parties submitted for supply of building material despite the fact both the applicant is alleged to have been dealing in supply of building material, whereas, the respondent is builder. Moreover, only one bill had been put on record, but the same was never endorsed by any authorized representative of the respondent. Although, the demand notice was issued via speed post and email, however, the respondent simply replied to the email stating, Thanks for your mail with attachment of demand notice . Later on, when the present petition has been filed by the applicant, the respondent admitted the claim simply. It is pertinent to note that prior to the issuance of above sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that there was no basis for recording the finding against the Appellant of any collusion or holding that bill raised by the Appellant was forged and fabricated. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani vs. Kestrel Import Export Pvt. Ltd.- Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 847 of 2020 . 5. We have considered the submission of the Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record. 6. The observations and conclusion which has been drawn by the Adjudicating Authority are based on the sequence of the events and facts of the case. The Adjudicating Authority has returned the finding that there was not a single correspondence between the Operational Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
