TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by Shree Pathology Laboratory, Operational Creditor/Petitioner, under section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) against Bigdream Ventures Private Limited, Corporate Debtor, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). SUBMISSIONS BY THE PETITIONER 2. The Petitioner is a partnership firm. This Application is filed by Dr. Santosh Babusaheb Khairnar, Partner of the Petitioner duly authorised to file the present Application. 3. The Petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs. 11,03,150/- plus interest @12% p.a. from the Corporate Debtor. 4. A brief history of the transaction between the Petitioner and the Corporate Debtor is as follows. The Petitioner is engaged in providing services of pathology labor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Debtor without any demur. 8. Contrary to mutually agreed terms, the Corporate Debtor started making delayed payment. The liability was accepted by the Corporate Debtor vide a ledger account of the Petitioner which is maintained by the Corporate Debtor, reflects a sum of Rs. 11,03,150/- is due and payable to the Petitioner. 9. On account of non-payment of the dues, the Petitioner approached the Corporate Debtor and intended to end the professional relationship and demanded the deposit and payment of the outstanding dues. 10. After several reminders made by the Petitioner to the Corporate Debtor, the Corporate Debtor on 24.04.2019 issued a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the settlement of full amount of deposit and outstanding due....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Debtor is in any way liable for payment of debts of Aarogyam Multi-speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd., an action at law can only be maintained by the Petitioner against Aarogyam Multi-speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and not directly against the Corporate Debtor, since there is no guarantee or indemnity provided by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner in respect of debts of Aarogyam Multi-speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd. e. The relationship between the Aarogyam Multi-speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and the Petitioner is that of joint venture partners. Any claim arising from this relationship cannot fall within the definition of "operational debt" in section 5(21) of the Code. f. There is no dispute that the pathological services were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... person rendering medical care under his supervision" h. The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 have been enacted under the power granted to the Indian Medical Council under Section 33(m) and under the provisions of Section 20A which require the Indian Medical Council to prescribe standards of professional conduct. A fee sharing arrangement is prohibited by law and any contract to that effect is unenforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Assuming but not admitting that the relationship between the Petitioner and Aarogyam Multi-speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd. is of a simple "referral fee" or "fee sharing", the same would be "legally enforceable" debt and thus an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner and filed with Statutory Authorities. f. The Corporate Debtor issued the Cheque dated 24.04.2019, bearing no. 071302 in discharge of the liability towards the monthly statements and the repayment of the deposit. Furthermore, four cheques bearing nos. 067009, 067015, 067016 and 067019 amounting to Rs. 50,000/- each were issued to the Petitioner in discharge of the liability. 14. The sharing of professional fees, as alleged in the reply did not arise and is denied in totality. There was bulk business that was being offered by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner for which a discount on the catalogue price was offered. FINDINGS 15. Upon perusal of the above submissions and hearing the professional appearing for the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t liable for any such claims. g) The medical Council rules further prohibit such practise of referral fee on commission basis and therefore such contracts are void and unenforceable contracts. h) The medical council rules are as follows: Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 notified vide the Notification dated 11.03.2002 issued under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; "6.4 Rebates and Commission: 6.4.1 A physician shall not give, solicit, or receive nor shall he offer to give solicit or receive, any gift, gratuity, commission or bonus in consideration of or return for the referring, recommending or procuring of any patient for medical, surgical or other treatme....