AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t for a total outstanding amount of Rs. 9,61,265/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) including interest claimed @ 24% on unpaid amount calculated till 31.03.2018 from due date of payment. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the Company Petition, are as follows: (i) M/s. Anant Pre-Engineered Structures ('Petitioner/Operational Creditor') is a Proprietary concern having GST Registration Number 29ACSPG7952P1ZH and having its office at Plot No. 442, 'Snehalata', Godsewadi, Opp. Air Force Ground, Mandoli Road, Tilakwadi, Belgaum-590006. (ii) M/s. Aerospace Processing India Private Limited ('Respondent/Corporate Debtor') is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 02.07.2007 under the Companies Act, 1956 having CIN: U35303KA2007PTC043311 and having its registered office at Plot No. 437/A, Hattargi Village, Hukkeri Taulk, Dist.-Belgaum, Karnataka-591243. The Authorised Share Capital of the Company is Rs. 16,90,00,000/- and Paid-up Share Capital of the Company is Rs. 16,88,98,460/-. (iii) It is stated that the Petitioner/Applicant received Purchase Order (PO No. APIPO/14-15/0237, dated 07.08.2014) for erection/inst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Company Petition was opposed by the Respondent by filing Statement of Objections dated 30.01.2019, by inter alia contending as follows: (i) The Application filed by Operational Creditor deserves to be dismissed at threshold as not maintainable as there is existence of real dispute with regard to services/supplies among Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. Further, the claim made by Operational Creditor is hopelessly barred by time and there is genuine dispute in respect of installation of external sheet (profile sheets) on the western side of the building of Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor specifically submits that the Operational Creditor has received the reply notice of dispute on 26.06.2018 and Operational Creditor has complete knowledge of the existence of genuine real dispute and did not approach this Tribunal with clean hands and on this ground alone the application of Operational Creditor deserves to be rejected. (ii) It is stated that the claim of the Operational Creditor/Applicant is not valid in the eyes of law. The Applicant's claim i.e. Rs. 9,61,265/- (i.e. principal of Rs. 5,49,876/- and the interest @ 24% p.a. Rs. 4,11,389/-) is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional Creditor that the debit note rectification of the work from the third party will be raised. Hence, Corporate Debtor was forced to get the work performed by a third party to rectify external sheet/profile sheet of western side of the building and complete the project and has incurred huge loss around Rs. 4,00,000/-. In spite of repeated mails, communications and opportunity provided by Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditors have miserably failed to complete the work, hence there is no question of any payment to Operational Creditor. (v) It is further stated that despite of the fact that the Corporate Debtor sent a reply cum dispute notice on 21.06.2018 via registered post acknowledgement and which was delivered to the Applicant on 26.06.2018, in reply to demand notice sent by the Applicant, Applicant in the present Petition submitted an Affidavit that "I state that in response to the said notices/invoices demanding payment, the Corporate Debtor has given no notice whatsoever relating to a dispute in respect of the unpaid operational debt." Therefore, Applicant stated many false things and tries to conceal the facts to mislead the Hon'ble Court. Hence, giving a fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....debt recovery. The Operational Creditor's objective is not in conformity with the intention of the legislature. 4. Heard Ms. Asmita Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Hari Babu Thota, learned PCS for the Respondent and Shri Vikram. S. Annappa, Director of the Respondent Company. We have carefully-perused the pleadings of the parties and the extant provisions of the Code. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while pointing out various contentions raised in the Company Petition and also in the Synopsis, as briefly stated supra, submits that the Petition is filed in accordance with law and the debt and default is admitted by the Corporate Debtor and no dispute raised by them and thus it is fit case to admit it. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, while pointing out various contentions raised in the Statement of Objections, has further submitted that there is serious dispute raised by them in respect of quality of work and delay in execution and there is serious lapse on the part of Petitioner in executing the contract in question. And as per the Purchase Order in question, any dispute, arise out of order should referred to Arbitration under the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1186 30 1156 60,410 3 30-01-15 Sales 55 240,000 235,200 4,800 1186 30 1156 3,649 4 20-02-15 Sales 58 240,000 - 240,000 1165 30 1135 179,112 5 21-02-15 Sales 59 240,000 14,400 225,600 1164 30 1134 168,217 799,476 549,876 411,389 9. The above statement shows that the Respondent has paid some of the invoices amount. However, it clearly shows that the outstanding amount relates to the year 2015 as per the PO No. APIPO/14-15/0237 dated 07.08.2014, which is.not enclosed. The amounts outstanding relates to the year 2015. The installations in question was completed from 27.12.2014 to 21.1.2015 and the corresponding bill was raised on 22.01.2015. Therefore, even though the amount was due in the year 2015, the Petitioner has not taken any action to recover the alleged outstanding amount till the legal notice dated 25.05.2018 is issued and the Petitioner also failed to raise any dispute by invoking arbitration clause, which is stated to be available as per the Purchase Order in question. The Peti....