2019 (7) TMI 1627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioned in the Company Petition as well as Synopsis of the Petition filed by the Petitioner, are as follows: (1) M/s. KEC International Ltd. ('Petitioner/Operational Creditor') is a Public Limited Company incorporated on 18.03.2005 under the Companies Act, 1956 with CIN: L45200MH2005PLC152061 and having its registered office at 'RPG House', 463, Dr. Annie Beasant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. The Company is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of power cables and various allied cable products. (2) M/s. Delton Electric Switchgears Private Limited ('Respondent/Corporate Debtor') is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 23.09.2008 under the Companies Act, 1956 with CIN: U32100KA2008PTC047827 and having its registered office at No. 63/3, 3rd Floor, Arham Towers', A.K. Colony, Off. K.R. Road, Jayanagar 7th Block, Bengaluru-560082. The Authorised Share Capital of the Company is Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) and the Paid-up Share Capital of the Company is Rs. 9,95,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand Only). (3) It is stated that the Petitioner has supplied the Corporate Debtor LT cables as per the spec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ened on 16.11.2013 and the Petitioner had made subsequent communication through emails and letters two of which were even acknowledged by the Respondent. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, provides "18. Effect of acknowledgement in writing - (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed." (6) It is stated that the Respondent had provided acknowledgement of the due amount twice first on 20.11.2014 for which the limitation period would end on 20.11.2017 and second acknowledgement on 21.09.2015 for which the limitation period ends on 21.09.2018 whereas this Application is filed on 13.03.2018. Further, the Hon'ble NCLAT in Engin Nasiroglu v. RVR Projects (P.) Ltd. (MANU/NL/0339/2018) reiterating Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Valliamma Champaka Pillai v. Sivathanu Pi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion blatantly and obviously suffers from the defect of delay and laches. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the Operational Creditor as to any steps it has taken in the preceding 6 (six) years to recover the dues allegedly payable to it. (4) It is also stated that on certain occasions, the Operational Creditor had directly dealt with the purchaser namely M/s. Shiraguppi Sugar Works Limited ('SSWL') and the Corporate Debtor was merely acting as an intermediary. There were many meetings held between the Operational Creditor, Corporate Debtor and SSWL in order to discuss about the terms of supply and payment. In one such meeting held on 03.11.2011, in the presence of the Operational Creditor, Corporate Debtor and SSWL, it was agreed that the Operational Creditor would deliver the materials and the invoices would be raised on the Corporate Debtor, which in turn would raise invoices on SSWL. It is stated that SSWL was required to make payments to the Corporate Debtor based on the said arrangement. 4. Heard Shri P. Bharath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Vivek B.R., learned Counsel for the Respondent. We have carefully perused the pleadings of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gal notice only on 06.12.2017 by calling upon the Corporate Debtor to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 68,95,846/-consisting of Rs. 28,81,283/- being Principal amount and Rs. 40,14,563/- being Interest amount. It is not in dispute that there is no contract between the Petitioner and the Respondent as per the Purchase Orders with regard to the payment of interest, and secondly, it is also not in dispute that the Petitioner itself has agreed that out of the total outstanding amount of Rs. 68,95,846/-, the Respondent has paid part payment for an amount of Rs. 33,85,557/-Therefore, the remaining principal amount is Rs. 28,81,283/-. However, the Petitioner has added interest of Rs. 40,14,563/- basing Interest Act, 1978. However, a commercial transaction starts on execution of Purchase Order followed by Invoice(s). Therefore, terms and conditions contained in the Purchase Order is basis to claim. 8. Moreover, admittedly the cause of action arises in the case in the year 2012, and it ends in June, 2012. However, the Petitioner has not taken any action except stating that they were corresponding with the Respondent. The Petitioner has not initiated any action except issuing notice for ....