TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or short, 'the I&B Code') for setting aside the impugned order 03.07.2019 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in CP(IB) No.293 (ND)/2018 by which Appellant's Application was dismissed. 2. The Appellant/Operational Creditor pleaded that the Respondent/Corporate Debtor has been regularly placing orders for surface acting industrial detergents for the dry-cleaning industry of various specifications with the Appellant. The Appellant supplied which were accepted by the Respondent without any demur or protest. However, the Respondent failed to make payments towards the invoices raised by the Appellant between the period July 2014 to November, 2017 an amount of EUR 229, 020.48 (Euro Two Hundred and Twenty Nine Thousand Twenty and Forty Eight....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd commercial laundry etc., and had a large customer base in India and further this agreement allowed Seitz GmbH to enter the India market to capture and cater to the large customer base of Simtech. That Confidentiality Agreement dated 20.03.2012 was in consideration of a relationship between Simtech and Seitz GmBH as Simtech was already in the business as stated above and thus had a large customer base in India which Seitz GmBH wanted to use its business gains and expansion of its footprints India. That keeping with the spirit and essence of the abovementioned Confidentiality Agreement dated 20.03.2012, and the understanding arrived between the parties, Seitz GmBH vide Board Resolution dated 02.08.2012 approved the formation of Seitz India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of approximately Rs. 1,39,98,821/- to Seitz India as loan which stands at Rs. 86,05,663/-. Apart from this, Mr.Sandeep Sood has significantly invested his time, effort and resources into Seitz India for which no compensation has been given till date. It is important to state here that Mr.Sandeep Sood vide his email dated 10.12.2015 requested Mr.Alexader Seitz to consider a price mechanism for transfer of clients, business network and the entire consumable business of Simtech to Seitz India is an admitted position as apparent from the email dated 29.03.2017. In response to the said email, Mr.Alexander Seitz vide his email dated 12.04.2017 agreed to issue credit notes to Simtech in order to release all outstanding of Seitz GmBH. That in vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supplied by Simtech, which has not happened at the behest of Seitz GmBH and Mr.Alexandar Seitz. It is reiterated that the accounts have to be settled interse between all the relevant stakeholders i.e (i) Simtech; (ii) Mr.Sandeep Sood; (iii) Seitz India; (iv) Seitz GmBH; and (v) Mr.Alexander Seitz. That in order to harass Simtech and to restrain Simtech and Mr.Sandeep Sood from demanding their legitimate dues, Seitz GmBH issued a demand notice dated 31.01.2018 under the Code claiming an alleged amount of Euro 229,020.48 from Simtech. The said Demand Notice has been duly replied by Simtech vide reply dated 12.02.2018 explaining that no outstanding amount is due and has elaborately explained the 'disputes' which exists between the parties/com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has been received by the Operational Creditor or there is no record of dispute in the information utility; and (e) There is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the resolution professional proposed under sub-section (4), if any. (ii) Reject the application and communicate such decision to the Operational creditor and the corporate Debtor, if - (a) The application is incomplete; (b) There has been repayment of the unpaid operational debt; (c) The creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor; (d) Notice of dispute has been received by the Operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility; or (e) Any disciplinary proceeding is pending against any propos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods prior to receipt of the Demand Notice. However, the Respondent after receipt of the Demand Notice has raised some dispute, but the dispute is not between the Appellant/Operational Creditor and Respondent/Corporate Debtor, the dispute is in regard to Third Party. The Third Party dispute cannot come within the meaning of Section 8 & 9 R/w Section 5(6) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for the purpose, he relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Mr.Chetan Sharma Vs. Jai Lakshmi Solvents (P) Ltd. & Anr., decided on 10.05.2018 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.66, 67, 68, 70 of 2019 in which it is held that Third Party dispute is not in the purview of Section 5(6) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 10. In this case, th....