TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicant, authorised vide board resolution dated March 10, 2018. 2. The applicant is a private limited company, registered with the Registrar of Companies, Jaipur bearing CIN No. U26101RJ2007PTC024076 and the registered office of the applicant is at E-217-217A, RIICO Industrial Area, Jhotwara Extn., (Sarna Dungar), Jaipur-302 012 (Rajasthan). The applicant is in the glass processing industry and in the business of toughened glass, laminated glass, architecture bent glass and its allied product with glass hardware. 3. The corporate debtor is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on May 17, 2012 duly registered with the Registrar of Companies, Jaipur bearing CIN No. U20290RJ2012PTC03 8921 and the registered office of the corporate debtor is at H-838-839, Khushkera Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Alwar-301 707 (Rajasthan). The corporate debtor is a manufacturer and supplier of UPVC furniture, aluminium furniture, casement windows and door, slider door, etc. 4. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant had supplied glasses to the corporate debtor. It is submitted in the additional documents filed by the applicant vide Dairy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls of outstanding and settled invoices and computation of amount due and interest thereon for the periods April 1, 2013 to August 31, 2019 Invoice date Bill No. Invoice amount Received amount Date of receipt Due amount Due date Delay days Interest at 24% per annum 12-04-2013 416 6,406 6,404 19-04-2013 2,325 9,790 17-04-2013 598 1,263 1,263 24-04-2013 2,320 1,927 25-06-2015 3,267 2,62,948 2,27,824 20-06-2015 26-06-2015 3,283 1,92,698 2,27,824 22-07-2015 -2 30-06-2015 3,422 6,077 6,077 15-07-2015 0 14-07-2015 3902 3,13,808 3,13,808 21-07-2015 1,502 3,09,922 14-07-2015 3910 1,14,117 1,14,117 21-07-2015 1,502 1,12,704 27-07-2015 4428 99,580 99,580 27-08-2015 0 30-07-2015 4574 15,151 15,151 10-09-2015 0 13-08-2015 5141 3,28,948 &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were never ever sent to the corporate debtor. It is also submitted that the board resolution filed by the applicant is invalid and inappropriate as it is not in conformity with the provisions of section 158 of the Companies Act, 2013 which mandates the director to indicate his DIN where his reference is made. It is also submitted that the authorisation to act as attorney is through power of attorney and not in accordance with rule 45 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and also not in Form No. 12. 10. The corporate debtor further submitted that the essence of filing of an application under the IBC, 2016, is basically to establish the situation of the corporate debtor of inability to pay off its debts. In the present case, the applicant nowhere proves the existence of legal liability or default or the inability of the corporate debtor to pay the same and therefore provisions of section 65 should be invoked and costs should be imposed on the applicant. It is also submitted that, out of 7 invoices alleged to be due in the application by the applicant to be outstanding, 4 invoices were already paid in 2015. 11. On perusal of all the files and hearing both the parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g reasons. 14. It has been asserted by the applicant/operational creditor that the computation sheet presented with the application was worked out on outstanding bills accounting on FIFO basis. The revised computation sheet was prepared by adjusting receipts on bill to bill basis. On bare reading of the revised tabular computation of outstanding and settled invoices and computation of amount, it is noted that the invoice amount raised has been mostly paid by the respondent on one to one basis. While there were continuing transactions between the parties since 2013 to July-August, 2015 the aspect of three invoices, bearing numbers 3902, 3910 and 5141 remained contentious and the last invoice is dated August 21, 2015 which should have been paid in seven days. Thus, the date of default would be August 28, 2015. It is the assertion of the operational creditor/applicant that the issue of disputed invoices was settled by a credit note dated April 1, 2017 signed by both the parties and thus a fresh period of limitation is to be computed therefrom. However, this is a tenuous argument as the said credit note does not carry any acknowledgment of liability in respect of prior period billin....