9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were all before the date when Demand Notice was issued. This indicate that at the time when Demand Notice was issued, there were dispute between the parties. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the Section 9 application there being a pre-existing dispute - Appeal dismissed. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson , [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) And [ Arun Baroka ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Manu Aggarwal, Mr. Shubham Budhiraja and Ms. Ishita Pandey, Advocates ORDER Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.09.2023 by which Section 9 application filed by the Appellant has been dismissed on the ground of pre-existing dispute. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace between us and your client. Your client's persons namely Prakash Sanghavi, Rameshbhai Sangahvi and Rohitbhai Sanghavi came to our office on 28.1.2019 and on that day the entire dispute was settled and the entire due amount was squared up by handing over polished Diamonds worth of 1,15,806 USD, and on that day itself Jangad Receipt was singed by Mr. Rohitbhai Sanghavi as receiver of the goods i.e. polish diamonds worth of 1,15,806 USD. Which was handed over by us to your client and thereafter nothing was remained to be paid. However, owner of Asian Diamonds BVBA namely Hasmukhbhai Sanghavi along with other two persons came to my office on 4.2.2019 and issued threat to keep ready more amount on the next day i.e. on 5.2.2019 Hasmukhbha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l dated 03.05.2019 was in response to email dated 21.02.2019 which was sent by the Appellant on 26.02.2019. The email sent by the Corporate Debtor indicate the entire issue raised between the parties, where the Corporate Debtor denied any outstanding amount. Further, the receipt which was claimed by the Corporate Debtor was the receipt of the diamonds received on behalf of the Appellant, which were all before the date when Demand Notice was issued. This indicate that at the time when Demand Notice was issued, there were dispute between the parties. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the Section 9 application there being a pre-existing dispute. Appeal is dismissed. However, it is always open for the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
