2018 (10) TMI 1727

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respect of M/s. Zopsmart Technology Private Limited under IBC, 2016. 2. Brief facts as mentioned in the Company Petition are as follows: (a) M/s. Gupshup Technology India Private Limited is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 . The Petitioner has been carrying on the business of providing Short Message Services ("SMS") for corporate on a Pan-India basis ("Services"). (b) The Respondent Company M/s. Zopsmart Technology Private Limited is incorporated on 28.10.2014. Its authorized share capital is Rs. 32,04,400/- and its paid up capital is Rs. 32,04,400/-. (c) Two Purchase Orders dated 21.04.2015 and 23.04.2015 were placed by the said Corporate Debtor for availing promotional Short Messaging Services (SMS) from the Op....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of harassing and coercing the Respondent into terms. The Petition lacks bona fides and is therefore liable to be dismissed in limine. The allegations made in the Petitions except the contract between the two parties, the rest of the allegations are false and frivolous. The Petitioner has filed the Petition with a mala fide intention and evil design to harass this Respondent. The Petitioner is attempting to see if he can make a wrongful gain out of a frivolous litigation. 2.  The Respondent came to know about the Petitioner and his services through the internet and there was no written contract between the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is submitted that this Respondent does not dispute the inters contract between the Petitioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent and more so, the Respondent had not instructed the Petitioner to render these services as shown in his invoices. The Petitioner failed to. produce any proof in support of their claim that Respondents asked the service in question. It is contended that the Petitioner failed to submit the SMS to the concerned pending invoices and the Respondents on many occasion requested the Petitioner orally to send the details but failed to submit the same. 6. It is further contended that the Respondents have made payment for the Purchase Orders placed by them including two more invoices up to 31.07.2015, as a matter of corporate trust, but there is no existence of dispute with this Respondent. 7. It is also submitted in respect of the pur....