TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Distributionship Agreement dated 01.04.2016 which says that the Agreement shall be reviewed by both the parties at the end of the term and shall be decided whether it is to be renewed and extended. 5. The Respondent placed the following Purchase Orders upon the Operational Creditor- Purchase Orders bearing Nos: ATTL/LPO/1617/12/108 • ATTL/LPO/ 1617/01/ 113 • ATTL/LPO/1617/02/119 • ATTL/LPO/1617/01/114 • ATTL/LPO/1617/02/120 • ATTL/LPO/1617/02/121 • ATTL/LPO/ 1617/03/ 123 • ATTL/LPO/1617/03/122 • ATTL/LPO/1617/03/128 • ATTL/LPO/1617/03/124 • ATTL/LPO/1617/03/130 • ATTL/LPO/1617/03/127 • ATTL/LPO/1617/03/125 • ATTL/LPO/1617/03/132 • ATTL/LPO/1617/03/133 6. The Petitioner raised the following invoices on the respondent- Invoice bearing Nos: • 226 dated 05.01.2017 • 009 dated 18.01.2017 • 010 dated 20.02.2017 • 011 dated 20.02.2017 • 254 dated 21.02.2017 • 256 dated 01.03.2017 • 260 date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unted to the respondent and not shown in the statement of account filed by the Operational Creditor. 16. The Operational Creditor did not give any technical Support to the respondent against the material supplied during the course of the Distributionship Agreement, due to which lost the valuable customers and incurred a loss of Rs. 23,00,000. 17. The Operational Creditor is not willing to supply for required spares for service related issue for the material supplied during the period of Contractual obligation. 18. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is pending before City Civil Court, Hyderabad and also before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. 19. The respondent further pleaded in the counter that due to his efforts only, the splicing machines manufactured by the petitioner got good market in India. 20. The petitioner is extending the Distributionship Agreement from year to year upto 01.04.2017, but in 2017 the petitioner and its parent company started harbouring mala fide intention to grab and usurp the business of the respondent and in pursuance of such mala fide intention, the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited and M/s. Candid Optronix Pvt. Ltd., as distributors of the petitioner and its parent company, but the said relief was not granted by the Civil Court. 29. The respondent also pleaded that there is no proper service of copy of petition and hence there is non-compliance of the rules. 30. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed a memo stating that the Corporate Debtor is interested to settle the dispute and agree to pay the due amount in 30 equal easy monthly instalments. 31. It is stated that the Corporate Debtor sent a Demand Draft No.577797, dated 04.04.2018, for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. 32. It is stated that the Corporate Debtor is willing to pay the outstanding due amount in equal easy monthly instalments on or before 10th of every succeeding month. 33. The Corporate Debtor stated that it has sent the 30 post-dated cheques drawn on State Bank of India in favour of the Operational Creditor for an amount of Rs. 1,69,27,857/-, totalling to Rs. 1,72,77,857/-. 34. The petitioner is not agreeable for the proposed payment made by the respondent. 35. The first and foremost objection raised by the respondent is, the demand notice said to have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a conjoint reading of Section 30 of the Advocates Act and Sections 8 and 9 of the Code together with the Adjudicatory Authority Rules and Forms thereunder would yield the result that a notice sent on behalf of an operational creditor by a lawyer would be in order". 46. First of all, in the case on hand the notice is signed by the authorised person of the Operational Creditor. It is sent from the office of the Advocate. 47. Therefore, it cannot be said that the demand notice sent in Form-3 is not in order. 48. The next contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that, in view of the clauses in the Distributionship Agreement it is only the Courts in New Delhi shall have a exclusive jurisdiction. 49. Coming to the invoking the provisions of the IB Code, Section 60(1) of the Code needs to be referred:- Sec. 60(1) The Adjudicating Authority, in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is located. 50. In view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erabad. 58. In the case on hand, first of all no notice of dispute has been issued by the respondent. Even if no notice of dispute is issued this Adjudicating Authority has to find out whether there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties before issuance of a demand notice. 59. The suit O.S. No.492/2017 is filed by the respondent against M/s. Sumitomo Electronic Industries Ltd. and the petitioner questioning the termination of the Distributionship Agreement dated 01.04.2016 that exists between the petitioner and the respondent without assigning any reasons, by issuing email dated 07.04.2017 by the Sumitomo Electronic Industries Limited and for restraining the Sumitomo Electronic Industries Limited and respondent herein from giving distribution of splicing machines to M/s. Invas Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Candid Optronix Pvt. Ltd. 60. The Learned Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide order dated 31.10.2017 passed in IA 422 and 423 of 2017 in O.S.No.492 of 2017 was pleased not to grant injunction from allotting the distribution to M/s.Invas Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Candid Optronix Pvt. Ltd. 61. However, the learned Senior Civil Judge gra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edari (IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00173/2017-18/10342) Flat No.202, D.No:8-3-167/D/49, Balaji Kalyan Apts, Next to Axis Bank, Kalyan Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana to act as Interim Resolution Professional U/Sec. 13(l)(b) of the code. Registrar is directed to send intimation to proposed IRP requesting him to send declaration and written communication in Form II within two days in the proforma. 75. Section 13 of the Code says that after admission of the application under Section 9, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass an order declaring moratorium for the purposes referred to in Section 14. Therefore, in view of the commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process with the admission of this Petition and appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional, this Adjudicating Authority hereby passes the order declaring moratorium under Section 13(1) (a) prohibiting the following as laid down in section 14 of the Code; a. The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits 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; b. Transferring, encumbering, ....