TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uka-Kadi, District-Mehsana Gujarat State. 2.2 Respondent Company placed an oral order with Applicant for supply of Lignite Coal. Accordingly, Applicant supplied Lignite Coal under different debit notes since several years. Applicant is maintaining a running account towards the cost of the supplies made and the amounts credited by the Respondent Company. In the said running account, a sum of Rs. 42,42,466.49 ps. as on 31st September, 2016 was due from the Respondent towards Principal amount and an amount of Rs. 7,00,486/- towards interest at the rate of 18% per annum till 30th September, 2016 due and payable by the Respondent Company. Applicant filed Ledger Account of the Respondent as 'Annexure A'. According to the Applicant, Respondent made use of the goods supplied by the Applicant without any complaint. Respondent failed to make payment for the goods supplied inspite of several oral requests. On the other hand, Respondent issued 11 cheques for payment of the outstanding amount, but all the relevant cheques given by the Respondent were dishonoured on 18.10.2016 and for such dishonour of cheque criminal complaints have been filed against the Respondent Company under Section 138....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt filed proof of service. Respondent appeared through learned Counsel and filed Objections and Further Objections. In the First Objections filed, it is stated that in response to the Demand Notice by way of a communication dated 12.5.2017 Respondent requested the Applicant to have a reconciliation. In the letter dated 12.5.2017 Respondent informed that the management of the Respondent was changed some where in May 2016 and the claims that have been raised in the Demand Notice dated 26.4.2017 are prior to the taking over of the Company by the present management. It is further stated that the new management of the Company at the time of taking over paid 50% of the debts to all the Creditors. At that time, Applicant did not present and did not make any claim. In the Further Objections, it is stated that in reply to the statutory notice dated 8.12.2016 under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act issued by the Applicant, Respondent issued a Reply dated 3.1.2017. In the said Reply dated 3.1.2017, Respondent mentioned about the dispute which is existing between the directors of company but not about existence of debt. In the Reply to the statutory notice issued under Section 138 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd., previously known as Durolam Limited. In that notice, it is clearly mentioned that there was an understanding between the Respondent and the Applicant and his father, that 50 per cent to be paid first, and remaining amount should be in 20 equal monthly instalments. It is also stated that Respondent paid Rs. 14,00,000 in cash on 22.6.2016. In the said notice it is clearly mentioned that there was a dispute with the earlier Director Shri Rajkumarji and due to those disputes there was an understanding to pay the amount in 20 equal instalments. In that notice there was a reference to the Reply Notice dated 16.11.2016 for the statutory notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the reply to the Demand Notice issued, a suggestion for reconciliation was made by the Respondent. 9.3 The Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, in Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd. v. Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd., decided on 24th May, 2017, held in Paragraph No. 31 as follows; "31. The dispute under I&B Code, 2016 must relate to specified nature in clause (a), (b) or (c), i.e., existence of amount of debt or quality of goods or service or breach of representation or warranty. Howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Agrawal, who happened to be not a Director with effect from 1st May, 2016, has been disputed. It may be said that the claim is not solely based on dishonour of cheques but it is based on debit notes which has been admitted. 9.5 In fact, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant contended that there is no dispute about the existence of debt. He also pointed out that in the Reply Notices as well as in the Reply to the Demand Notice, they have admitted the existence of debts and sought for reconciliation. A part of the argument of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that is in respect of agreeing for reconciliation is correct. But, as can be seen from the Reply Notices dated 17.11.2016 and 3.1.2017 that were placed on record that due to the dispute amongst the Directors there was an understanding among family members of the Respondent Company and the Applicant family people to pay 50 per cent of the amounts and rest of the amount in 20 equal monthly instalments. In view of the said statement in the Reply Notices, it cannot be said that there is any dispute regarding the existence of amount of debt. It only suggests that there is an understanding between the family of the Appli....