TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ows: (1) M/s. JCDecaux Advertising India Private Limited (Petitioner/Operational Creditor) is a Company registered under the Companied Act, 1956, and subsist under the Companies Act, 2013, with its registered office at Plot No. 153, 3rd Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi - 110 020. The Company is a part of JCDecaux Group, which is largest outdoor advertising specialist, with large presence in Europe and Asia Pacific regions and it is the largest outdoor advertising corporation in the world. (2) M/s. Ithaca Estates Private Limited (Respondent/Corporate Debtor) is a Private Limited Company was incorporated on 23-1-2013 bearing CIN: U45205KA2013PTC067632 under the Companies Act. Its Authorized Share Capital of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) and the Paid-up Capital of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only). The Corporate Debtor being interested to advertise its products had approached the Operational Creditor for advertisement in Bangalore International Airport and thus the Operational Creditor accepted the offer and mutually executed a Contract dated 7-5-2014 and also executed contracts subsequently, for subsequent work orders. The terms and conditions in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions, raised concerns with all services provided by the Petitioner, inter alia as to the quality of the material erected and that the board display was not well lit. The Respondent vide email dated 24-4-2018, in good faith and with view to maintain long lasting business relationship with the Petitioner, had requested the Petitioner to agree to a payment modality favourable to both the parties, however, there has been no response to the said email. The email further records the fact that despite the request made by the Respondent and without its consent, the Petitioner removed the brand display of the Respondent, which has affected the Respondent's campaign and brand visibility, which is in breach of contractual obligations. (4) It is stated that the Petitioner has sent a Demand Notice to the Respondent by inter alia demanding a sum of Rs. 24,56,796/-. The Respondent in its reply dated 14-5-2019, has denied the claim of Petitioner, and further contended that they have paid excess payment for Rs. 10,89,160/-. The statement of accounts dated 29-3-2019, which was sent by the Applicant had completely different claim amount and it was contradictory to the amount demanded in their ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter alia held that "existence of an undisputed debt is sine quo non of initiating CIRP. It also follows that the Adjudicating Authority shall satisfy itself that there is a debt payable and there is operational debt and the Corporate Debtor has not repaid the same." Another case of Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 292/144 SCL 37 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down that IBC is not intended to be substitute to a recovery form. It is also laid down that whenever there is existence of real dispute, the IBC provisions cannot be invoked." (8) Therefore, in view of the existing dispute, the present proceeding is not maintainable either on law or on fact and is liable to be dismissed." 4. Heard Shri S. Guru Prasanna, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Ms. Shivani Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent. We have carefully perused the pleadings of both the parties, and the extant provisions of the Code and Rules made thereunder and the law on the issue. 5. Shri S. Guru Prasanna, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the various averments made in the pleadings already placed on record, as men....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luding filing statement of objections and also give an opportunity to the parties to explore the possibility of settlement of the issue in question. Since, the Petitioner has filed three cases against Group Companies viz., Ithaca Estates Pvt. Ltd., Royaume Estates Pvt. Ltd., Skylark Arcadia Pvt. Ltd., which are stated to be solvent Companies, and filed with an intention to recover the alleged outstanding amounts, the Adjudicating Authority has granted sufficient time for resolving the issue in question. However, the Petitioner is not willing to settle the issue and insisted to decide the issue as per its merits. 8. The Petitioner, before issuing the impugned Demand Notice dated 24-4-2019 under the provisions of the Code, has earlier issued common Legal Notice dated 29-3-2019 to Skylark Group of Companies viz., (i) Ithaca Estates Pvt. Ltd. - Skylark in C.P.(IB)No. 236/BB/2019 (ii) Royaume Estates Pvt. Ltd. - Skylark in C.P(IB)No. 235/BB/2019 (iii) Skylark Arcadia Pvt. Ltd. - in C.P(IB)No. 237/BB/2019 and (iv) Skylark Mansions Pvt. Ltd., by inter alia stating that the Addressees have failed to make payments against the invoices, contrary to the promises made for displaying the adver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On the other hand, the Respondent has also relied upon of such emails dated 24-4-2018, by bringing to the notice of the Petitioner that they have stalled/removed their campaign even after long relationship and also requested for re-installing their sites. The Petitioner admittedly deemed to have terminated the Service Contract in question for want of outstanding amounts due from the Respondent, with effect from 26th March, 2018. Since Contract in question deemed to be terminated, it is for the Petitioner to settle the issue through friendly negotiations, failing which has to approach competent Civil Court in New Delhi, as per clause 20 of Contract in question. Principles of natural justice ordains/stipulate that concerned party should be put on notice of the grievance(s) of a party and also to follow/exhaustive alternative mechanism provided by Parties between themselves before approaching any judicial form either Civil Court or Tribunal etc. As stated supra, the Petitioner chose to file three cases against Group Companies by mixing fact of case. As per law, every Company is deemed to be separate legal entity to proceed or to be proceeded by or against....