9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice, the notice is clearly notice of dispute. When the Corporate Debtor immediately after first design was submitted said that it was not complete and refund of Rs.3 Lakhs was claimed, the dispute was raised immediately after 31.07.2019, which was much prior to the Demand Notice. The averments made in the Reply to Demand Notice clearly indicate that dispute was raised which cannot be a moonshine or not supported by any material. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting Section 9 application on the ground of pre-existing dispute - there is no merit in the Appeal - appeal dismissed. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson And [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Shreyash U. Lali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord. 4. When the Demand Notice was issued by the Operational Creditor vide communication dated 19.12.2019, the said Demand Notice was promptly replied on 27.12.2019 refuting the claim of the Appellant. It is useful to extract the allegations made in the reply to the Demand Notice from Para 7 to Para 13, which are to the following effect: 7. It is stated that the further payments were based upon the completion of basic design. However, the equipment arrangement was not done for FBP coating machine due to technical issue. It is pertinent to note that the said work is part of Basic engineering for which the payments were already made. However, the work could not proceed further due to technical fault at your end and therefore, the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that you approached us with an ulterious motive to deceive and cheat us. That based upon your assurances to be expert in your field we made the advance payments. However, later you made us run from pillar to post for the refund. It is stated that while we were under process of recovering the said advance payments you sent us this demand notice which is not tenable under law. 11. It is pertinent to note that you have not come up with clean hands and your company is trying to take advantage of its own wrong. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Reply to the Demand Notice was not correct reply and it was duly explained in the Rejoinder by Corporate Debtor. When we look into the Reply to the Demand Notice, the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
