2019 (4) TMI 593

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Code against the Corporate Debtor stating that the Corporate Debtor defaulted paying the dues outstanding against the invoices raised by the Applicant, therefore filed this case to initiate CIRP process against the Corporate Debtor. 2. The Applicant counsel submits that since the Applicant placed orders for supply of cables on the Operational Creditor during the year 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Applicants supplied various types of cables on the basis of purchase orders placed. On the invoices raised by the Applicant against the Corporate Debtor towards the cables supplied by it, as and when defaults occurred, the Applicant wrote to the Corporate Debtor of their failure in making payments, in response to the same, the Corporate Debtor throu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orth, the Operational Creditor should issue fresh notice to the Corporate Debtor before filing this Company Petition u/s. 9 of the Code. On the operational Creditor/applicant being felt aggrieved by the order of Honourable NCLAT, appealed to the Honourable Supreme Court of India, there the appeal being dismissed on 12.02.2018, Honourable NCLAT order attained finality. Then following the order of NCLAT, the Applicant on 30.11.2017 issued demand notice u/s. 8 in respect to non-receipt of unpaid operational debt from the Corporate Debtor, the Corporate Debtor replied to Section 8 Notice disputing the debt claim raised by the debtor. 5. The Applicant submits that as on 30.11.2017, the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay Rs. 7,60,11,111.65, int....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Manufacturer's Warranty, whereby the Corporate Debtor called upon the Applicant to provide warranty, or in the alternative the material was to be treated as rejected. Soon thereafter, the corporate debtor on 5.3.2015 sent email to the applicant that in view of the applicant making announcement of closure of manufacturing unit in India became a contentious issue with Indian Clients, especially different state electricity Boards resulting into the clients of the corporate debtor withholding the bills of the corporate debtor, the applicant should provide manufacturer's warranty otherwise the goods supplied by the applicant will be rejected. 9. Subsequently, on 16.03.2015, the Corporate Debtor again called upon the Applicant to pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was transferred to this Bench, rest has taken place as mentioned above. 13. The short point involved in this case is, the Corporate Debtor raised a dispute over the warranty from as back as 2015 by sending notices and emails, therefore the Corporate Debtor submits that this Petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. In addition to the above contentions, since this applicant has already filed Civil Suit over the same subject matter against the same Corporate Debtor before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi even before filing this Company Petition on the ground of saving the claim from lapse of limitation period, the Corporate Debtor counsel submits that this Petition is liable to be dismissed basing on the ground that the dispute is in....