9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Code. Thus, no illegality has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the Section 9 Application - appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1315 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2022 - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson And [ Mr. Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Darpan Wadhwa , Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shreyan Das , Mr. Avijit Patnaik , Mr. Bidesh Ranjan Behera , Mr. Amer Vaid , Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Ratan K. Singh , Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Gurung , Advocate JUDGEMENT Ashok Bhushan , J : 1. This Appeal by an Operational Creditor has been filed against the Order dated 02nd August, 2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debit Notes adjusting the due amount mentioned in the invoices and in so far as remaining 4 Purchase Orders are concerned, Operational Creditor had failed and neglected to supply raw materials despite having received the advance amount of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- The emails dated 1st June, 2020, 01st September, 2020 and 15th February, 2021 relied by Operational Creditor alleging that Corporate Debtor had accepted the liability, were neither issued by the Corporate Debtor nor can be read as in any manner as acknowledgement of debt as the aforesaid emails were sent through the Official Email Id unauthorizedly by one Ms. Mahi Batra who was no more in employment of the Corporate Debtor after May, 2020. There were materials evidencing pre-existing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issues in relation to the chemical. All the Adjudicating Authority was to see as to whether there is any plausible contention which requires further investigation and is not patently feeble the argument or assertion of fact is unsupported by evidence. 4. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. In the facts of the present case, Notice of Demand was issued by the Operational Creditor and by Demand Notice dated 01st September, 2021 the Appellant demanded outstanding amount out of eight purchase orders with interest as Rs. 5,41,88,211/-. It is relevant to notice that Demand Notice under Section 8 was replied vide Letter dated 14th September, 2021 by the Corporate Debtor stoutly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the NABL Certified Laboratory. Hence, against the said invoices, my client had made full and final payment of Rs. 11,58,03,708/- (Rs. Eleven Crores Fifty Eight Lakhs Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight only) to your client and therefore nothing is due and payable against supply of 08 rakes of materials/Iron Ore by my client. 6. Further in paragraph 10, it has been pleaded that amount of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- was advanced against the Purchase Orders to be supplied. With regard to the emails sent by Ms. Mahi Batra alleging acknowledgment on behalf of the Corporate Debtor which was denied, it was stated that Ms. Mahi Batra was working as a Manager from December, 2018 to May, 2020 and emails sent thereafter by Ms. Mahi Batra were immor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt mentioned in the invoices issued by operational creditor against said 8 purchase orders towards supply of inferior quality of raw material. Said debit notes were duly received by the authorized representative of operational creditor [Annexure 11(Colly)]. So far as remaining 4 purchase orders are concerned, the operational creditor had failed and neglected to supply raw material/iron ore despite having received the advance payment of Rs. 1,21,00,000/-. The operational creditor has neither supplied the material against said 4 purchase orders nor refunded the said amount despite repeated reminders dated 22.04.2021, 07.05.2021 12.06.2021 (Annexures- 12, 13 14) sent by Corporate Debtor to Operational Creditor in that behalf. In said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Creditor while filing the instant petition. The present petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed/rejected by this Hon ble Tribunal under the provisions of the IBC including under Section 9(5)(ii) (d) of the IBC, 2016 and operational creditor is liable to be proceeded against as per the provisions of Section 76 of IBC. 7. The Reply has specifically referred the email sent by the Corporate Debtor dated 22.04.2021 and other emails prior to receipt of the Demand Notice where as Demand was made to supply the material against the subsequent four purchase orders for which advance of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- was issued. The reply has categorically explained the alleged emails sent by Ms. Mahi Batra acknowledging the debt and I.A. was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
