TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 236
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Network Limited (herein after referred to as Petitioner/Applicant/ Operational Creditor) is a Sole Proprietorship Firm represented by its Proprietor, Mr. P Prasad, is a contractor engaged in the business of supply of materials and application of Water Proofing works along with cinder filling concrete works having permanent address at #178, 8th A Cross, 14th Main CSWA Layout, RPC Layout Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-560040. (2) M/S. R.J. Rishikaran Projects Private Limited (herein after referred to as Respondent/ Corporate Debtor) was incorporated on 07.03.2013, having registered office at Pent House, R.J. Manor Apartments, #11/A, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034, bearing CIN: U45209KA201ærC068127. Its Authorised Share Capital is Rs. divided into 100,000 Equity Shares of Rs. 100/- each and Paid-up Capital is divided into 30,000 Equity Shares of Rs. 100/- each. (3) The Petitioner/ Applicant was awarded the following works by the Corporate Debtor for Rs. 1,02,47,640/-: a. Water Proofing works for the project 'R.J.Brooke Square' of R.J. Rishikaran Projects Private Limited situated at Kundalahalli, Bangalore for a sum of Rs. 80,00,335/-. b. Cinder ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cheque No. 003283 dated 30.05.2019 for Rs. 22,00,000/- The first Cheque No.003281 dated 21.03.2019 for Rs. 5,66,600/-,was honoured. However, when cheque No. 003282 dated 30.04.2019 for Rs. 15,00,000/-, was presented for clearance, it was rejected by the Bank stating "payment stopped by drawer". Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor made part payment of on 16th May 2019 against Further, with respect to Cheque No. 003283 dated 30.05.2019 for Rs. 22,00,000/- the Operational Creditor once again received the request from Corporate Debtor for not to present the cheque for clearance. However, the Operational Creditor has not received any payment form the Corporate Debtor towards this dishonoured cheque. (7) It is stated that the Operational Creditor had also filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore on 26th July 2019 for cheques bouncing vide Complain No 17072/2019. The first hearing was held on 26th July 2019 and the Respondent Company and its Directors have filed W.P No.4623446238/2019 before the Hon 'ble High Court of Karnataka for exclusion of Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.5 i.e. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also defaulted in filing of annual return form the financial year 2017-18 and 2018-19. 3. The instant Company Petition is opposed by the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor by way of filing Statement of Objections dated 16.12.2019, by inter alia contending as follows: (1) The Respondent is a Construction Company engaged in the business of construction of residential apartment buildings, and it is actively involved in the said business. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of undertaking water proofing works and cinder and concrete works in residential apartment's project building. The Respondent engaged the services of the Petitioner for water proofing works in one of its residential project, 'R.J Brooke Square', Kundalahalli, Bengaluru, as per the offer acceptance letter dated 10-09 2016. The value of the work entrusted as per the said document is Rs. 80,00,335/-. Similarly, the Applicant was entrusted with the cinder and concrete work as per the offer acceptance letter dated 30.11.2016. The value of the said work is in a sum of Rs. 22,47,305/-. The Applicant has deliberately not produced the entire contract document which disclose the terms and condition, about which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is submitted that in the letter dated 19.06.2019, the Respondent has clearly communicated to the Applicant regarding the work deficiency in the prestigious project RJ Brooke Square at Brooke Field, Kundalahalli, Bengaluru560037. In the said letter, the Respondent has clearly indicated the financial loss and the likely impact of market reputation suffered by the Respondent due to the shoddy work carried out by the Applicant. The contents of the said letter are self-explanatory. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant presented the two cheques in question for realization as stated by him in his notice dated 28/06/2019. Since, the Respondent had justifiably given instructions to the Bank to stop payment, the two cheques were returned with the said endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. The Respondent caused a Reply through its Advocate dated 12/07 / 2019. Notwithstanding with breach of contract committed by the applicant, it has filed PCR No.9333/2019 (C.c No. 17072/2019) in the Court of the XXI Additional CMM, at Bengaluru. The Managing Director of the Respondent Company has appeared in the said case. Further, the Respondent Company, and its four Directors have filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was kept pending. However the instant Company Petition is still maintainable as the Respondent admittedly still not paid the outstanding in question. He, therefore, urged the Adjudicating Authority to admit the case as prayed for. 6. Mr. Ashok.B.Patil, learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, while pointing out the various averments made in the statement of objections, as briefly stated supra, has further submitted that the claim in question is seriously in dispute. For failure to rectify defective service in * question, the Respondent was constrained to stop payment of cheques in question, which was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Criminal Court and High Court. He further submitted that in pursuant to the complaint made to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Bangalore vide Application No. KR03D0041473/M/00001 filed by Mr.Pargi Prasad, they have also pointed defective service and raised dispute. And the instant Petition is filed with an intention to recover alleged outstanding amounts under the provisions of Code and they are resorting to multiple litigation for same cause of action. He has further stated that the Company is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave obliged to help you in checking the bill as well as releasing fund towards the work. The inordinate delay on your part in completion of water proofing rectification work is adversely affecting our milestone achievement and commitment given by us to our clients. Needless to mention that our laxity in taking corrective steps is not only affecting us financially but is also likely to impact our market reputation. Considering the present notice (i.e; MSEFC-CASE No.=KR03D0041473/M/00001) which you have issue to us and situation at the site, we are convinced that your will not going to complete the water proofing rectification work within the stipulated time as per the agreement. In view of the above, without prejudice to our rights under the agreement, we are exercising the powers conferred on us by the aforesaid agreement, for and on behalf of R.J. RishiKaran Projects Pvt. Ltd hold the pending amount until you rectify defected water proofing work. Failing which in the next 15 days we will forfeit the entire balance amount due and get it corrected from another agency. Also warranty certificated haven't been issued by you as well and we have to make further claims of dama....