TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oviding services such as Investment Banking, Private Banking, Asset Management etc. The Petitioner provided credit facility of upto $20,000,000/- to Glints Global General Trading LLC (Glints) vide Credit Facility Agreement dated 12.03.2013. Pursuant to the said agreement, Glints, as a security, executed an Assignment of Claims Agreement (Security Agreement) dated 12.03.2013 thereby assigning all present and future claims to the Petitioner. 3. On 30.01.2014, Glints entered into a sales transaction agreement with the Corporate Debtor for supply of 30,544 MTS of Carborough Downs Hard Coking Coal for a total value of $5,039,760/-. The goods were shipped to the Corporate Debtor and the delivery is evidenced by Bills of Lading that are annexed to the Petition. Also annexed with the Petition are the certificate of Sampling and Analysis dated 20.01.2014, the certificate of Weight dated 20.01.2014, Certificate of Australian Origin dated 24.01.2014 and Supplementary Certificate of Sampling and Analysis dated 20.01.2014. 4. It is stated that the goods were supplied in accordance with the specifications set out in the Sales Contract and that the Corporate Debtor has received the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il dated 21.07.2014 the Corporate Debtor has assured that it will pay today i.e. 21.07.2014 and similar assurance was made on 23.07.2014. 9. In another letter addressed to the Petitioner dated 28.07.2014 the Corporate Debtor has stated that it has requested for deferment of payment as there were quality issues in the material supplied which was not unusual in the nature of trade. The Petitioner on 21.08.2014 received a letter from Topworth stating that it will make the payment for the invoice amount due from Corporate Debtor on or before 31.08.2014. 10. Eventually on 29.08.2014, the Petitioner sent an e-mail acknowledging the $1,000,000/- received from the Corporate Debtor and demanding the balance remaining. 11. On 01.09.2014 the Corporate Debtor sought another four-day deferment, till 09.09.2014, for payment of the balance amount of $4,039,795/- in lieu of holidays for festival of Lord Ganesha. 12. On 02.09.2014 the Petitioner sent a notice objecting to the further deferment sought by the Corporate Debtor and levied interest at 18% p.a. from 03.06.2014. 13. The Corporate Debtor on 19.09.2014 issued a letter to the Petitioner again raising the issue of poor quali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Rejoinder stating that the Corporate Debtor has specifically acknowledged its liability to pay to the Petitioner against the sales invoice in the settlement agreement dated 23.03.2014. It is stated that the Corporate Debtor made three instalments under the settlement agreement however failed to make any further payment as per the settlement terms and thus as per the terms is liable to pay the entire invoice amount and the settlement agreement was withdrawn. The Petitioner submits that since the Corporate Debtor has unconditionally and unequivocally admitted its liability under the settlement agreement it cannot raise any objection with regard to the same. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor vide its various letters and emails dated from July 2014 to August 2014 has admitted the liability. It is stated that the Corporate Debtor had the knowledge of the shipment being financed by the Petitioner as the invoice bears as endorsement that the amount are duly assigned to the Petitioner. 19. The Petitioner has stated that, it was only after September 2014 that the Corporate Debtor referred to certain deductions that were assured by Glints on account of the goods supplied be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e loss suffered due to poor quality of the goods supplied. 27. It is pertinent to note here that the law regarding petitions under section 9 of IBC is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited, (2018) 1 SCC 353 and K. Kishan vs. M/S Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 21824 Of 2017 order dated 14.08.2018. The Adjudicating Authority has only to see whether the said debt can be said to be disputed and that the dispute is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence without examining the merits of the dispute. If the Adjudicating Authority is of the opinion that there exists a dispute to the extent as aforesaid then it has to reject the petition. 28. In the present petition, the Corporate Debtor has communicated the issue of poor quality of goods to the Petitioner on 28.06.2014. The issue of poor quality of goods supplied was again raised by the Corporate Debtor in its letter dated 28.07.2014. In the letter of the Corporate Debtor dated 19.09.2014 it has again communicated its inability to pay the outstanding amount due to the poor qu....