TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ows: The Operational Creditor is engaged in the business of dealing in grains, poultry feed ingredients etc. used for manufacturing poultry feeds. In the usual course of business, the Corporate Debtor from time to time purchased the said goods from the Operational Creditor for manufacture of poultry feeds in its mill. The Operational Creditor has all along been maintaining and running continuous accounts of all dealings and transaction with the Corporate Debtor. In view of the regular business relationship between the parties, the Operational Creditor sold the aforesaid goods on credit and from time to time part payment were made by the Corporate Debtor. After considering all part payments made by the Corporate Debtor, a principal sum of Rs. 7,06,839/- became due, outstanding and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. After adjustment of the part payments against previous invoices/transactions, the invoices against which the said sum is due, are given in a schedule annexed with the Application. The aforesaid debt has been duly acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor. 3. The Operational Creditor has claimed the above said principal sum of Rs. 7,06,839/- @ 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dealing with the customers including the Respondent Company, has delivered and sold which of the quantity of goods under the cover of each of the three Corporate entities. The Respondent Company had raised objection to the random supply of goods. Though the respondent objected, goods were forcefully sent by the Applicant to the Respondent Company without specific requisition and request being made by the Respondent Company. The Respondent Company used to pay the Applicant Company against the goods supplied in random. The Respondent Company was unable to assess as to how the Applicant's company adjusted the amount paid towards the supply of goods or as to how the adjustment in the above three different entities were made. In addition to the above said, a detailed dispute is seen to be raised by the corporate debtor. It reads as follows:- (a) Substantial quantity of goods supplied by the Applicant were of inferior quality that has substantially affected the business of the respondent Company. Not only loss in terms of money but also reputation was caused to the Respondent Company. (b) In as much as the respondent company had always maintained cordial relationsh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Respondent faced difficulty to assess as to which of the aforesaid three entities have supplied the goods to the Respondent. It is also denied that the goods supplied by the petitioner were delivered forcefully or that against any forced delivery by the Applicant, the Operational Creditor is demanding the payment. Upon the above said contentions, the Operational Creditor prays for allowing the Application. After hearing and reserving for orders, a supplementary affidavit, seen filed by the Respondent without leave by denying the contentions raised by the Operational Creditor in the rejoinder. It was brought to my notice from the registry. In the supplementary affidavit, the Respondent reiterated the contentions raised by the Corporate Debtor in the reply affidavit. For convenience sake, it is not repeated. 9. Heard both sides and perused the records. 10. This is an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Applicant is the manufacturer dealer in poultry feeds. It is contended that the Corporate Debtor used to purchase the poultry feeds from the Operational Creditor and on the basis of the order of purchase, Annexure "A" invoic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the date of receipt of the demand notice here in this case, no proof. On the other hand, what is requested as per the reply notice is that the applicant has to take back the goods as it is rotten, within 7 days of receipt of the reply notice. It is an indication that request for return was raised for the first time when the demand notice was received by the respondent. To prove the pre-existing dispute, what is relied upon by the Corporate Debtor is the two E-mails referred to in the reply affidavit. Annexure "C" is the E- mail copies referred to by the Corporate Debtor in the reply affidavit. It is good to read the contents in the E-Mail. It reads as follows:- "Dear Sir, As per telephonic discussion with our Director Mr. Anirban Chatterjee we would like to inform you that the Soya DOC which was delivered by your Company by Vehicle No. WB 23A 8495 is very poor in quality and over toasted also. Kindly also be informed that because non other material is available we are bound to consume this material in our Poultry Feed. Therefore, requesting you to kindly look into this matter and oblige..." 13. To whom the above said E-mail is addressed, is not clear. Howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchase. Therefore, analytical report and the E-Mail produced on the side of the Corporate Debtor is not at all helpful to prove that the dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor in the reply to the demand notice as well as to the reply notice are raised by the Corporate Debtor in respect of the goods supplied by the Operational Creditor as per Annexure "A" invoices. Evidence being lacking on the side of the Corporate Debtor to strengthen the contention that there exists pre-existing disputes in respect of the goods supplied to the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor, the objection raised by the Corporate Debtor is found devoid of any merit. 15. One another document also produced on the side of the Corporate Debtor is Annexure "E" to prove that there is payment towards the goods supplied and that the claim amount shown in the Application is incorrect. The Ld. Counsel for the Operational Creditor pointed out that the copy of the debit voucher produced as Annexure "A" does not refer to the supply of goods by the Operational Creditor, namely, Shri Krishna Agri product Pvt. Ltd. but it is related to Basukinath Agro Private Limited, one other sister concern of the Applicant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled because the Corporate Debtor has raised disputes. The dispute raised is found devoid of any merit. In compliance with Section 9(3)(b)(c), the Operational creditor has produced a certificate issued from its Bank dated 27-12-2017 by way of Supplementary Affidavit dated 01-02-2018. However, no name of the Insolvency Resolution Professional is proposed. Therefore, the question of compliance with Section 9(5)(i)(e) does not arise. All other requirements as per Section 9(5)(i)(a) to (c) are seen complied with and since the dispute raised is found not bona fide, this Application is liable to be admitted. 21. Since no name of the Interim Resolution Professional is proposed, the Resolution Professional, Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Mobile Number 9831248361 is hereby appointed. 22. In the result, the Application is admitted upon the following directions:- ORDERS (i) The application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, Feedatives Pharma Private Limited is hereby admitted. (ii) I hereby declare a moratorium and public announce....