TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... U 74899 DL 2000 PTC 104341) against whom initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has been prayed for, was incorporated on 10.03.2000 having its registered office situated at 8638, East Park Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110 005. Since the registered office of the respondent corporate debtor is in New Delhi, this Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the NCT of Delhi is the Adjudicating Authority in relation to the prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of respondent corporate debtor under sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code. 3. It is the case of the applicant that the corporate debtor has been a regular purchaser of goods from the applicant operational creditor since 2012. The corporate debtor had a running account with the operational creditor for the same. Following the standard practice of running accounts, the operational creditor would regularly fulfill orders made by the corporate debtor and raise invoices. The corporate debtor on the other hand would make lump sum payments for the goods supplied on account, with the understanding that the payments would be adjusted against the first outstanding invoices and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent has submitted that a dispute was raised first in May 2015 and subsequently on 15.04.2016 by raising two debit notes. It is claimed that debit note bearing dated 31.03.2015 (generated in May 2015) and debit note dated 15.04.2016 have been duly received by the Petitioner prior to the issuance of Section 8 notice. It is claimed that the two debit notes were duly acknowledged by the petitioner at that time and bear a stamp of the petitioner company evidencing receipt. 12. It is further alleged that the operational debt claimed by way of the present petition stands extinguished since 15.04.2016 and therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that though the invoices pertain to the year 2015 but not a single communication has been made from the petitioner to the respondent seeking payment of the balance till December 2018. It is submitted that the petitioner had issued emails to the respondent on 28.12.2015 seeking for C Form details. However, no mention of any amount left outstanding between the parties is mentioned therein. It is claimed that any prudent business person would take this opportunity to ask f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spute has been received by the operational creditor. Section 9(5)(ii)(d) refers to the notice of an existing dispute that has been received, as it has to be read with Section 8(2)(a) of the Code. The moment there is existence of a pre-existing dispute, the operational debtor gets out of the clutches of the rigors of the Code. 21. "Dispute" has been defined under the Code in Section 5(6) which envisages that: "(6) "dispute" includes a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to-- (a) the existence of the amount of debt; (b) the quality of goods or service; or (c) the breach of a representation or warranty." 22. It is no longer Res-Integra that the definition of dispute is inclusive and not exhaustive. Dispute has been given wide meaning so as to cover all disputes on debt, default etc. and not be limited to only pending suit or a record of a pending arbitration. 23. Needless to say, that it is always open to the 'Corporate Debtor' to take the plea of 'existence of dispute' before the Adjudicating Authority, which alone can be a ground to reject the application filed under Section 9 of the Code. 24. It is now a settled proposition of law that wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 28.12.2018 under Section 8(2) of the Code bringing to the notice of the petitioner the existence of dispute in respect of the claimed operational debt. 29. Besides respondent has placed on record various correspondences and debit notes to prove that the dispute in the reply to the demand notice was not raised for the first time but pre-existed much prior to the Section 8 notice. 30. Respondent has claimed that debit notes bearing dated 31.03.2015 and dated 15.04.2016 have been duly received and acknowledged by the petitioner by affixing the stamp of the petitioner company. 31. The main contention of the respondent is that these unpaid debit notes combined covers the alleged operational debt, and therefore the present claim stands extinguished long before in the year 2016. 32. In response petitioner has claimed that the debit notes are forged and fabricated and was received for the first time with the reply dated 28.12.2018. 33. Ordinarily acknowledgements bearing signature and seal of a company are sufficient evidence of receipt. On one hand respondent has not placed any proof of dispatch/delivery of debit notes to the petitioner and on the other hand the petition....