TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,723 (Principal due Rs.14,96,370 less Rs.2,95,267 towards the credit notes issued =Outstanding amount = Rs.12,01,103 + interest @ 25% i.e. Rs.3,95,620) is arising out of the undisputed quotation raised by the Operational Creditor on 23.1.2016 for supply of Technova Plates. 3. Several complaints were received from the Corporate Debtor in respect of the quality of the goods manufactured by Technova and supplied by the Operational Creditor. Credit notes were issued in respect of the said defective goods. It is stated in the written submission filed by the Operational Creditor that the issue of defective goods was settled after the credit notes were issued. Therefore, the Operational Creditor requested the Corporate Debtor to release the balance payments against the invoices. 4. Since there was no payment made by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor, the Operational Creditor filed this Company petition on 8.3.2018 for initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. 5. The Operational Creditor issued Demand Notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code on 26.12.2017 for Rs.15,96,723. In response to the said Demand notice, the Corporate Debtor issued a notice of dispute dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase orders and corresponding invoices on record should not be viewed in isolation as they are part of continuing business transaction between the parties. The Corporate Debtor has further stated that if the petitioner can raise credit notes for the defective goods supplied by it, then there is no reason why the Petitioner is not similarly liable for the losses caused as a result of the supply of defective goods. 8. The Corporate Debtor, in its written submission, has pointed certain flaws and defects in the petition that cannot be cured. It is stated that there are contradictions in the information given in the demand notice and that in the petition. The Corporate Debtor has also stated that since the Operational Creditor has supplied goods under various purchase orders; therefore, it has to file separate actions in respect of each distinct purchase order. 9. The Corporate Debtor has further relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd vs Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd.(AIR 2017 SC 4532)which has interpreted the scope of the existence of a dispute between the parties. 10. The Operational Creditor has filed its affidavit in rejoinder on 6.11.2018 wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10.6.2016, 30.6.2016 and 7.7.2016. The ledger account maintained in the Books of the Corporate Debtor records these credit notes. The final credit balance, as reflected in the ledger, produced on record by the Corporate Debtor, after adjustment of the said three credit notes tallies with the claim of the Operational Creditor. Therefore, there is no doubt that the said three credit notes are accepted by the Corporate Debtor as full settlement of the cost of defective goods. The dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor, therefore, only pertains to the loss suffered by it due to the defective goods. 15. The Operational Creditor had issued a demand notice on 5.5.2017 (first demand notice) claiming the same amount as in the present petition. It is only in response to this first Demand Notice dated 5.5.2017, the Corporate Debtor in its notice of dispute dated 15.5.2017 had for the first time stated that it had quantified the loss caused to it due to a breach of an agreement to the tune of Rs.28,00,000/-. Due to some technicalities, the prior petition by the present Petitioner against the Corporate Debtor was dismissed with liberty to file fresh. The counsel for the Petitioner company ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... requiring the dispute to be pre-existing to the receipt of the demand notice would be frustrated. 17. Further, the Hon'ble NCLAT in The Dhar Textile Mills Ltd. vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 11 of 2019order dated 07.01.2019) it is clearly held that the Tribunal does not have to decide the mismatch of the claim amount at various places as it is not for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the claim amount of the creditor at the stage of Admission. All that this Tribunal has to see is whether the claim amount is more than Rs.1,00,000/- or not. If the claim amount is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and all other requirements are met, than the case would be admitted, in light of the law, as mentioned, the ground on which the earlier proceedings were dismissed, no longer exist, and the demand notice cannot be said to be defective and non-existent. Therefore, this dispute cannot be said to be a preexisting dispute before the receipt of demand notice as it was raised only after the receipt of the first demand notice. 18. In the email dated 26.12.2016, the Corporate Debtor has admitted its liability towards the Petitioner and has promised payme....