TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orate Insolvency Resolution Process against Sapura Engineering & Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the 'Corporate Debtor') on the ground, that the Corporate Debtor committed default on 03.11.2018 in repayment amount payable to the Corporate Debtor in lieu of services provided by the Corporate Debtor under Service Order dated 25.07.2018. The amount claimed by the Petitioner as per Form - 5 is of Rs. 61,49,771/-, under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereafter called the 'Code') read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. The Petitioner is a company undergoing liquidation as per the order passed by the Nat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of Rs. 98,33,333/, the Corporate Debtor has made a payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- till 31st October 2018, after which they completely stopped making any payments at all. 6. The Petitioner further submits that since no payment was being made to them by the Corporate Debtor, he was constrained to send them a Demand Notice seeking repayment of the amount due. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to repay outstanding amount to the Petitioner and instead he received reply to the said Demand notice on 30.11.2018. The Corporate Debtor in their reply denied all the claims of the Petitioner and informed that since the Petitioner themselves were in breach of the Service Order on various occasions and had failed to deliver the work on time as promi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd. [2017]144 SCL 37 to state that there a various correspondence between the parties to show the existence of dispute upon the subject matter of the Petition. ORDER 9. Before going into the merits of the case it is pertinent to discuss what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. case (supra) with regard to existence of dispute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Adjudicating Authority will have to reject a petition under section 9 if the three conditions are not satisfied viz. if there is operational debt exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/-; the documentary evidence furnished with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment is reproduced below: 11. "It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the "existence" of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. Therefore, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re various correspondences and documents such as Minutes of the Meeting dated 03.09.2018, Minutes of the Meeting Dated 18.09.2018, E-mail Dated 09.10.2018 from the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner, Notice dated 12.10.2018 from the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner giving an ultimatum to improving their services within 5 days from the date of the letter and termination letter dated 31.10.2018 annexed to petition and mentioned in reply to the demand notice which was received by the Petitioner, clearly shows that there was a dispute regarding the services provided by the Petitioner much before the demand notice was issued. The 'dispute' in this case passes the test of a genuine dispute laid down in the Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. ....