TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Work Store ltd. (hereinafter called "Corporate Debtor") alleging that the Corporate Debtor committed default in making payment to the extent of Rs. 1,24,34,966/- including interest @21% p.a. by invoking the provisions of Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter called "Code") read with Rule 6 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that they entered into a Leave and License Agreement with the Corporate Debtor on 06.09.2014 for office premises situated at 6th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Kamla Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai - 400 013. 3. The Petitioner relies on the Leave and License agreement and the Bank Statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fault of the Corporate Debtor that the Petitioner had created charge in respect of the Licensed Premises on 25.09.2014, which is soon after entering into the leave and license agreement, therefore, breaching the said agreement and deceiving the Corporate Debtor. 7. The Corporate Debtor submits that the Petitioner never informed him about the same and he was kept in dark about it. It was only on 20.09.2016, when the Corporate Debtor got to know about the Charge of the Licenses premises by a Letter dated 20.09.2016 from Syndicate Bank, which asked the Petitioner (who was a guarantor in a transaction) to make payment towards the loan advanced by the banks or the Banks would exercise its powers under section of the SARFAESI Act. 8. Therea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect from July 2017. 12. A letter was also issued to Dena Bank dated 27.07.2017 requesting them not to disrupt the peaceful possession of the Corporate Debtor, while the Petitioner relied to the abovesaid legal notice denying every claim of the Corporate Debtor. However, all these attempts of the Corporate Debtor were of no use, since on 28.02.2018 the Notice was issued by Court Commissioner appointed with regards to the Licensed Premises informing that the possession of the Licensed Premises will be taken on 13.03.2017. Hence, the Corporate Debtor was compelled to vacate the licensed premises. 13. Furthermore, it is also submitted by the Corporate Debtor that on 19.03.2018, the Corporate Debtor vide his letter that since he was force....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defense which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defense is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application". 17. When the law laid ....