TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th January, 2002 under the companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 1-107 A Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. Since the registered office of the respondent corporate debtor is in Delhi, this Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place, is the Adjudicating Authority in relation to the prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of respondent corporate debtor under sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code. 3. The applicant operational creditor, M/S Sudhir Sales & Services Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 507, International trade tower, Nehru place, New Delhi-110019 and is engaged in the business of renting, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of silent D. G. Sets, after sales service, sale of spare parts etc. 4. It is the case of the applicant that both applicant and respondent company entered into an agreement on 10.07.2010 for supply of 45 numbers of DG sets along with accessories at Cluster 5, New Delhi in respect of the Commonwealth Games on rental basis. The total contract value agreed between the parties was 1,62,49,360/-. Subsequently ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 433 (e) and 434 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956. Thereafter petition under Section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding-up of the respondent company was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 8. In the meantime, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has come into force and the matter got transferred from High Court to this Tribunal vide High Court order dated 15.02.2017. Subsequently on 27.11. 2017 the petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application under Section 9 of the Code. Thereafter a demand notice dated 20th December 2017 under Section 8 of the Code was issued. Nevertheless since the outstanding amount was not paid the present application under Section 9 of the Code was preferred on 24th January 2018 for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against the respondent corporate debtor. 9. Respondent corporate debtor has filed reply on 26.02.2018 mainly with the contention that there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties which was communicated to the applicant in the reply of respondent dated 09.09.2017 and 09.11.2017. It is the case of the respondent that ad hoc payment was being made to the applicant an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....International Trade Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi - 110019. Sub: Your Letter dated 28.09.2013 Dear Sir, Please refer to the statement as per your books ofaccounts with claim ofRs. 56 , 37 899/- towards providing Rental DG Sets & other related items during Common Wealth Games, New Delhi which is subject of approval reconciliation for our client M/S ESAJV D-Art India Pvt. Ltd. As mutuaZZy agreed we shaZZ release your outstanding as per the approval / reconciliation of our client and as soon as they get the payment form OC on this account. This is further subject to the arbitration matter with OC, which is pending before the Arbitral Tribunal. The arbitration is going on and we shall keep you updated on its status. Thanking you, For D-Art Furniture Systems Pvt. Ltd. " (emphasis given) 16. The letter inter alia reveals that the claim was subject to reconciliation and approval. There is thus force in the contention of respondent that the question of reconciliation of account was raised much earlier in the year 2013. 17. It is further seen that the demand notice in the present case was issued under Section 8 (1) of the Code on 20th December 2017. Respondents have plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to settle the matter, but your Client in spite of settling the matter has gone to the far extent of stating that the Company has become insolvent. 11. kindly treat the present Reply as a notice of "existence of dispute" within the meaning of the I & B, Code 2016................. Take notice accordingly (SUMESH DHA WAN)" 18. It is thus seen that the dispute was brought to the notice of the applicant prior to the issuance of the demand notice dated 20.12.2017 issued under Section 8 (1) of the Code. 19. The present claim has remained unpaid long since the year 2011. Applicant has admitted that repeated pursuance and follow-up actions were undertaken since the year 2011 for release of the outstanding arnount. It has been stated that the representative of operational creditor had visited the corporate debtor many times and lastly in January 2016. Thereafter winding up petition was filed in the Hon ble High Court Delhi against the corporate debtor in the year 2016. In such very old matters the claim of existence of dispute between the parties is a normal inference and therefore such claim of existence of dispute raised prior to the issuance of notice cannot be lightly ign....