TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority, Mumbai Bench in CP No. 4603(IB)/MB/2018 dated 29th June 2020 whereby the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Application filed by the Operational Creditor/Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It is contended that the Operational Creditor LCL Logistix (India) Pvt Ltd is engaged in conducting freight forwarding, warehousing and distribution services for third parties such as, but not limited to warehousing, product handling, inbound and outbound transportation, customs documentation, freight management and forwarding activities and WAAREE Energies Ltd, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of solar photovoltaic modules. The service agreement provided that the Respondent Corporate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t made a reply on 14th September 2018 falsely denying its liability; after that, the Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016, which was rejected by the impugned order. The Respondent/Corporate Debtor contends that the alleged claim amounting of Rs. 1,50,97,439/- relates to demurrage and detention charges is not crystallised. The issue regarding the payment against detention charges requires extensive evidence which cannot be decided under summary jurisdiction provided to Adjudicating Authority under I&B Code. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Application on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has raised a dispute regarding demurrage payment, much before the issuance of demand notice. The contention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er: "Dear Mr Doshi, The turn of events have been surprising to us as well. All along there has been a very different line of discussion between Ms Asmita and myself from LCL Ligistix and Mr Amit and Mr Prem from Waaree team who were also involved in day to day working when these detentions were being incurred. They are fully aware of each case as it happened. Basis their knowledge of events these invoices were already accepted by Mr Prem and Mr Amit. Self and Asmita went over every single invoice with Mr Prem and Mr Amit involving detentions incurred at Bhiwandi / Sez Sachin and Akola (Roha project) and looked at individual cases. A synopsis for every invoice was made giving supporting of all charges incurred. The synopsis contained ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntention requiring further investigation which is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of facts unsupported by evidence. The defence is not spurious, mere bluster, plainly frivolous or vexatious. A dispute does truly exist in fact between the parties, which may or may not ultimately succeed, and the Appellate Tribunal was wholly incorrect in characterising the defence as vague, got up and motivated to evade liability. 51. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the Application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the infor....