9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice dated 11.02.2022 replied on 03.03.2022 raising a dispute. The Adjudicating Authority has gone into the circumstances of their business dealings, which was mainly basis oral arrangements and which cannot be fully substantiated and accordingly have come to the conclusion that the dispute raised by the respondent is plausible and not a patently feeble legal argument. Thus, when the Appellant received the reply to Section 8 demand notice raising a dispute, the Section 9 petition could not have been proceeded under I B Code against the respondent. The Adjudicating Authority concluded, that to determine the contention of the respondent that the Sale Order dated 02.03.2019 was placed by the Petitioner in pursuance to an oral agreement dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority against Shivom Minerals Limited (hereinafter, Respondent or Corporate Debtor ). 3. Case of the appellant and the respondent is mentioned in the paras 2 and 3 of the impugned order and is not being reproduced for brevity. 4. Briefly speaking, it is not disputed that the Appellant and respondent had been dealing in the business of sale and purchase of iron ore fines and sponge iron lumps since 2017, mainly through oral arrangements and payments were being made in a running account. Respondent had argued before the Adjudicating Authority that Appellant had an agreement for purchase dated 02.03.2019 for lifting of huge quantities of materials of about 10,000 MTs. But the Appellant lifted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st based on preponderance of probabilities alone but many other circumstantial factors. 9. The main point for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority was whether there is a pre-existing dispute on the basis of the submissions of both the parties and this has been dealt in detail by the Adjudicating Authority in his impugned order. 10. The Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) 1 SCC 353. The relevant para of Apex Court s order is extracted here: . 40. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised by the respondent is plausible and not a patently feeble legal argument. Thus, when the Appellant received the reply to Section 8 demand notice raising a dispute, the Section 9 petition could not have been proceeded under I B Code against the respondent. 12. The Adjudicating Authority concluded, that to determine the contention of the respondent that the Sale Order dated 02.03.2019 was placed by the Petitioner in pursuance to an oral agreement dated 05.04.2018, to decide whether private mediation was held and settlement was arrived therein and whether petitioner agreed to forfeit Rs. 4 crores security deposit by the respondent and to decide the genuineness of the invoices and Sale Orders relied by the respondent requires, further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
