TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a company with authorised share capital of 30 crores and paid-up share capital of 2,69,17,000. In November 2013, the respondent company approached the petitioner company to get the interiors fit out and finishing work at their office situated at Picture Palace, the Mall, Kulri, Mussoorie, District -Dehradun. III. The Respondent Company issued two work contracts in favour of the petitioner company, 1st work contract dated 5 December 2013 confirming and awarding the POP, fixed wood work and stone work at the above stated project for the cost of Rs. 2,49,63,512 and 2nd work contract dated 14 August 2014 confirming and awarding the finishing work, stone work, painting work, floor, wall and ceiling at the said office for a cost of Rs. 119,72,058.20 in favour of the petitioner company. Copies of the two work contracts dated 5 December 2013 and 14 August 2014 issued by the corporate debtor are annexed as Annexure P-3. In furtherance of the 2 work contracts, the respondent company has also issued one purchase order dated 24 December 2013 and several work orders from the month of February 2015 to April 2016 in favour of the petitioner company in view of the interior fit out and finishing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the entire work as per the contract. VII. The petitioner company had even written reminder email to the respondent company and had requested to clear the outstanding Bill amount. However, repeated request and efforts of the petitioner company went unheard. That the respondent company had miserably failed to clear the outstanding dues in respect of the above bills & invoices which were raised by the petitioner company during execution of the POP Work. VIII. The petitioner contended till date the operational creditor has only received an amount of Rs. 45,343,885 from the respondent, in instalments. The total amount deducted given TDS, WCT and accommodation charges Rs. 4,064,595. Therefore the total amount paid by the respondent company to the petitioner company is Rs. 49,408,480. The corporate debtor had only made part payment out of the total bills raised by the petitioner company. Petitioner has also filed the copy of the bank account statement of the operational creditor for December 2013 to September 2015, showing the part payment of Rs. 45,343,885 received from the corporate debtor, which is annexed with the petition as annexure P-8. IX. The petitioner has also filed a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tially failed to provide the details of the alleged unpaid amount of Rs. 2,982,784 against the corporate debtor and have simply reiterated the amounts mentioned under the terms of the contract entered into with the respondent for the project at picture palace, on various dates such as: (a) The amount of rupees 246,53,512 for a work order dated 5 December 2013. (b) The amount of rupees 119,72,058,20 via work order dated 14 August 2014. (c) The amount of Rs. 3,000,005 work order dated 2 February 2015. (d) The amount of Rs. 3,597,968 via work order dated 23rd April 2015. (e) The amount of Rs. 3,542,658 via work order six dated 29th to April 2015. (f) The work order dated 28 August 2015 amount of Rs. 264,283. (g) The work order dated 20 February 2016 for an amount of Rs. 250,000. (h) The work order dated 5th April 2016 for an amount of Rs. 175.000. (i) The work order dated 18th April 2016 for an amount of Rs. 1,071,127. II. It is further stated by the corporate debtor that the operational creditor has mentioned without any basis that the amount due towards RA Bill number 1, 1 Diff, 2, 2 Diff, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as raised by the corporate debtor with between 9 June ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner through email correspondence to rectify the several issues pertaining to the work assigned under the agreements and reiterated an unequivocal manner to send it to task team for attending the snags, which were largely going unattended by the petitioner, to complete the balance spending works as per the commitments made by the petitioner which includes the reception internal wooden cladding works, to get Lekage in areas like reception and others attended by the duly authorised and competent workers of the petitioner and to post the person in charge of the petitioner namely Sheo Murty, immediately at the site, as the abovementioned defaults were causing unnecessary delay in the completion of the assigned work under the terms of the agreement. True copy of the email correspondence dated 4 July 2016 is annexed as annexure R-4. The corporate debtor has also pointed out several deficiencies in the work completed by the operational creditor, and on this basis, he requested making payment. vi. That on 18.07.2016, the respondent further reminded the Petitioner about the completion of balance work by 20.07.2016 for both Attic floors, seepage through the glass reception and glass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sly given the Work Orders to petitioner indicates of broad statisfaction. So in the present case, there is no real existance of dispute. Hence by following the Principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the [Civil Appeal No. 9405 of 2017, dated 21-9-2017] in Matter of "Mobilox Innovation (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Limited" It is clear that under provision of section 9(5)(II)(d) notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor but "dispute" raised by Corporate Debtor is mere a patently feeble legal argument and assertion of fact unsupported by valid evidence, which could establish dispute between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor. 5. The operational creditor has filed supplementary affidavit stating no notice had been given by the Corporate Debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operation debt of Rs. 42,58,844/- to the Operational Creditor. The operational creditor has complied with the provision of section 9(3)(b) and in compliance of (c) of the Insolvency in Bankruptcy Code annexed the Bank Certificates dated 04.10.2017, 06.10.2017 and 16.11.2017. 6. There is nothing on record which proves that there was pre-existing dispute relating t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Code. It is further made clear that all the personnel connected with Corporate Debtor, its promoter or any other person associated with Management of the Corporate Debtor are under a legal obligation under Section 19 of the Code extend every assistance and cooperation to the Interim Resolution Professional. IRP would be at liberty to make appropriate application to this Tribunal with a prayer for Passing an appropriate order. The IRP shall be under a duty to protect and preserve the value of the property of the 'Corporate Debtor' as a part of its obligation imposed by Section 20 of the I& B Code, 2016. v. That the order of moratorium u/s. 14 shall have effect from the date of this order, till the completion of corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under section 33 as the case may be. vi. That the Bench hereby prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of pending suit or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority....