9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent have also made by the Corporate Debtor and there is also a confirmation of balance in the shape of statement of accounts, which is duly acknowledged and signed by the authorised signatory of the Corporate Debtor. Further, there is evidence to prove the supply of the material to the Corporate Debtor and it has also availed ITC of GST on the goods received by it. Based on these facts, the Adjudicating Authority has come to a conclusion, that all the issues raised by the Corporate Debtor have been duly noted and findings have been returned on all the issues raised in the Corporate Debtor, basis the documentary evidence available with it. After hearing both the parties the Adjudicating Authority has come to a conclusion that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al 3. The present petition is filed against the CD - M/s Kevin Ventures LLPby the Operational Creditor M/s PMC YM-Pharma Private Limited under Section 9 read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Rules for a resolution of total operational debt of Rs. 3,84,61,125/-, which included a principal amount of Rs.2,73,09,675/- and interest of Rs.1,11,51,450/-. Operational Creditor is a company registered with the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal and is a subsidiary of a foreign company and into manufacturing of various chemical products, intermediates of pharmaceuticals bulk drugs etc. And the Corporate Debtor M/s Kevin Ventures LLP is a registered LLP which is carrying out the wholesale trade and commission trade except for motor vehicl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds principal and Rs.1,11,51,450/- towards interest. Basis above, the Adjudicating Authority has concluded that there is a debt payable by the Corporate Debtor and it has defaulted to pay and as there is no pre-existing dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor, hence this a fit case for admitting Corporate Debtor into CIRP. 4. The Appellant claims that the petition is seriously time barred. Further, the Appellant claims that the Director of Respondent No.2 who has filed the Company Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( IBC ) under oath, that he was personally aware of the facts of the matter, had joined the Company as a Director on 24.06.2019 i.e. more than 16 months after the alleged purchase order and tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of invoices in both the documents Section 9 Petition and demand notice submitted by Respondent No.2. Appellant claims that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to ascertain and determine the debt and default as defined within the Code. It also raised the question of initiation of CIRP and it could be raised only if the CD was bankrupt and insolvent and not otherwise. Findings and Conclusions 8. After hearing the counsels of both sides and perusing all the documents on the claim of the Appellant that the petition is seriously time barred, we find that the matter has been examined by the AA in detail and given its findings. The OC had on 18.02.2022 issued Section 8 notice alongwith the invoices which are relevant for the demand no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company wherein, is has been mentioned that on those dates of invoices raised by the Operational Creditor, no material was received by them. AA has returned its finding that the dates mentioned therein are the dates of invoices and not the dates of delivery. Furthermore, he has returned finding that this a third-party document obtained by Corporate Debtor. We do not find any error with this finding. 11. The Operational Creditor has also placed on record the concerned eway bills which authenticate the dispatch of material. Further the Operational Creditor has produced the print outs taken from the website of GST department to further corroborate that the Corporate Debtor has availed the ITC of IGST on the supply of material. This is a cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Debtor before it also have the signature of the same Mr. Rajeev Shah with the same seal of the Corporate Debtor as authorised signatory on every page including as deponent. Therefore, the submission of the Corporate Debtor is found to be misleading and away from the facts. 14. Appellant s claims that it had an arrangement with Operational Creditor by which the alleged invoices were drawn without actually executing the trade transaction and/or movement of the goods covered under the invoices - cannot stand the scrutiny as it is found to be contradictory. In other parts of the petition as well as in this appeal, it has given various details with respect to the disputes particularly, when he claims that goods dispatched were not prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
