https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421495 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421495 Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - validity of demand notice - copies of the invoices, not attached with demand notice - HELD THAT:- The corporate debtor has raised objection that the Demand Notice sent by the applicant is defective as copies of invoices were not attached with the Demand Notice. In this regard it is seen that the invoices were duly received by the respondent which is evident from sign and seal of the company on the copies of the invoices. Since, the respondent had already knowledge about the invoices, the objection is not tenable. Maintainability of application on behalf of sole proprietorship - HELD THAT:- The present application has been filed by Shri Rajesh Gupta being sole proprietorship of M/s. Ujjwal Packaging. Apparently, the petition has not been filed on behalf of M/s. Ujjwal Packaging rather the same has been filed by Shri Rajesh Gupta. Hence, the same is maintainable. Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Apparently, the goods were being received till 26th February 2019 and the respondent made part payment on 10th May 2019. The amount due does not pertains to the year 2018, rather the same was due qua subsequent invoices. In this regard reliance can be placed on citation Mobilox Innovative Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited [ 2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that It is clear, therefore that once the Operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. Hence, the dispute must be genuine and vague allegations would not serve the purpose as levelled in the present matter. Although, one consignment was defective, but the same was prior to 26th February 2019 and the intimation qua defective articles was sent on December 2018. The said issue was already stand resolved between the parties. Accordingly after that, the respondent kept on placing orders and also received the goods. Even, part payment was made on 10th May 2019. Therefore, it could not be said that there was any pre-existing dispute between the parties. This Tribunal is of affirm view that the payment with respect to invoices raised on behalf of petitioner were not made by the respondent, accordingly, the present petition stands admitted - Petition admitted - moratorium declared. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 11 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530