9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 9 application filed by the Appellant. The Appellant was engaged as Consultant for providing consultancy services to the Corporate Debtor. The invoices were issued by the Appellant in February, 2015. On 18.02.2015, the Corporate Debtor with regard to the consultancy services for Coal Block issued a letter raising various issues pertaining to the quality of service. After the receipt of said letter some clarification was issued on 09.03.2015 by the Operational Creditor. By email dated 05.03.2015, Corporate Debtor was communicated that they are qualified and successful in Tara Block. Appellant's case is that letter dated 18.02.2015 was replied on 09.03.2015 and thereafter no response was received and correspondence was made in 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petition. Since this letter is filed by the Petitioner, therefore, its genuineness cannot be doubted. And on the basis of this document, it is admitted fact that the Respondent has raised the dispute regarding the quality and deficiency in the service, which comes under the definition of dispute u/s. 5(6) of the IBC, 2016. In view of the Section 9(5)(ii) IBC, the moment dispute is established by the Corporate Debtor, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process should not be initiated against the Corporate Debtor. So far payment of TDS is concerned, it is not settled that deduction of TDS does not amount to acknowledgement of debt. The Insolvency Proceedings are not meant to be recovery proceedings. This Adjudicating Authority cannot en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also objected by the Respondent and reply was filed raising dispute and refuting the claim of the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority had come to the conclusion that there being pre-existing dispute application deserves rejection. The disputes pertaining to contractual issues are not to be resolved in Section 9 proceedings. Present is not a case where there is undisputed debt for which insolvency can be asked by the Appellant to be initiated. We are of the view that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting Section 9 application, there being a preexisting dispute. There is no merit in the Appeal. Appeal is dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant lastly submits that TDS deductions were made even after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
