2020 (4) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocates ORDER Heard Learned Counsel for Appellant and Counsel for Respondent No. 1 ('Operational Creditor'). Respondent No. 1 'M/s. Capedge Consulting Pvt. Ltd.' ('Operational Creditor') filed an application u/s 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('I&B' Code, for short) against Respondent No. 2 'M/s India Techs Private Ltd.' ('Corporate Debtor') before Adjudicating Authority ('National Company Law Tribunal' Kochi Bench) TIBA/14/KOB/19. Appellant claims to be the Managing Director of the 'Corporate Debtor' and has filed this appeal as the application u/s 9 came to be admitted vide Impugned Order dated 25.10.19. 2. The 'Operational Creditor' filed the application through its Director Jacob K. Thomas. The application c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd.'. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant making reference to the agreement at Annexure A6(P-74) that one other Company 'M/s. Telsa Marketing Pvt. Ltd.' and ' M/s. Capedge Metals & Minerals Pvt. Ltd.' had entered into agreement whereby Jacob K. Thomas took loan from that sister concern. It is stated that Mrs. Elizabeth Thomas shown in the document as Managing Director of 'M/s. Telsa Marketing Pvt. Ltd.' in Annexure A6 is also Managing Director in 'Corporate Debtor'. 6. Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that because of this transaction with the sister concern, a confusion has got created between 'Operational Creditor' and 'Corporate Debtor' on one side and the other Company 'M/s. Telsa Marketing Pvt. Ltd.' and ' M/s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed between all parties. Since we have decided that all parties are not intending for any legal disputes, we request that the bounced cheques are returned to me tomorrow when we meet to agree on the settlement proposal. Regards Jacob" 8. When the e-mail was read out to us, we expressed to the Learned Counsel that the e.mail at the most indicates regarding some disputes but does not disclose what is the dispute. For the purpose of Section 9, the relevant would be whether there was dispute regarding the quality of services rendered as the present matter relates to services rendered. 9. Learned Counsel then referred to us the e.mail dated 21.1.18 (p-90) Annexure A8 which was sent by the 'Corporate Debtor' to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at from the very start. - - - - - - - - - - (1) What are Capedge's achievements and results so far regarding the India Techs project? From the 1st payment in 2015 on 23/11 and 23/12 of Rs. 78,375/- and Rs. 350,000/-, and on 28/06/2016 of Rs. 618,300/- and both in November 2016 when India Techs renewed the agreement and later in Aug 1st and 23rd India Techs paid Capedge Rs. 14,65,000/-, I had requested you to submit reports about the progress of the project and results achieved. You have not, to date, submitted even one report on the India Techs Project in spite of having 2 Junior Consultants who were appointed to work full time on the India Techs project." 12. Referring to this para of the e.mail, the Learned Counsel submitted t....