TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n reveals that the claim amount consists of two portions, one for the sale of machinery to the extent of Rs. 77,52,435/- and Rs. 18,95,326/-towards interest on the delay in payment of the above said sum, totaling Rs. 96,47,761/-. The followings are the details of calculation for this portion of the claim: Sr. No. Bill No. Invoice Date Amount Due Interest Total outstanding due 1 GP4/1800894 27-Sep-17 16,65,994 4,39,549 21,05,544 2 GP4/1800915 29-Sep-17 44,84,000 1,97,026 10,01,824 8,69,626 48,13,224 3 GP4/1802022 23-Dec-17 1,18,000 29,620 1,47,620 4 GP4/1802533 25-Jan-18 1,18,000 27,699 1,45,699 5 GP4/1900122 17-Apr-18 1,18,000 22,928 1,40,928 6 GP4/1900121 17-Apr-18 1,18,000 22,928 1,40,928 7 GP4/1900487 15-May-18 1,26,260 22,789 1,49,049 8 GP4/1901073 23-Jun-18 2,54,880 41,102 2,95,982 9 GP4/1901915 30-Jul-18 2,41,900 34....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 88,333.33 iii) Passenger hoists Rs. 60,000.00 iv) Air compressor Rs. 4,666.66 v) Aluminum Formwork Rs. 20,3,333.33 vi) Staff Rs. 7 Lacs-Payroll vii) Support Staff Rs. 4 Lacs: Bhupati viii) Workmen Rs. 18 Lac ix) Loss of revenue Rs. 1.50 Crores x) Loss of profit Rs. 30 lacs IV. The Petitioner failed to provide certain standard accessories in respect of three cranes supplied for the project-Godrej Central during 2015 and due to that the cranes were idle from 07.03.2016 to 20.06.2019 entailing a total rental charge of Rs. 1,50,000/- (dry lease) per crane for a period of 36 months for two cranes. V. There are various critical issues developed in wire rope winding at Gurgaon site which was a quality failure that created certain safety concerns etc. 6. The Corporate Debtor in the reply to the Petition submitted that the amount claimed by the Petitioner was completely fake and there is no outstanding due as claimed. The Corporate Debtor given the following invoice wise details of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Petitioner were duly paid. It is submitted that several invoices were raised against the purchase orders placed by the Corporate Debtor from time to time as per the requirements of site of the Corporate Debtor and was duly paid either in advance or after the delivery of the cranes and spare parts. 9. The Corporate Debtor enclosed the following emails to say that there were pre-existing disputes: a. Email dated 04.05.2015 from the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner. "Subject: ACE crane Rajiv, Picture sent by Bangalore officer, matter serious and extremely disturbing. Take up the matter with ACE now. I want them in office tomorrow" b. Email dated 10.10.2015 sent by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner "Subject: FW: Nearmiss Incident Dear Mahesh, Please look into this. In Gurgaon Godrej site, it is the second time the crane hoist brake has failed and the hook has fallen from a height. As his doing peacemeal correction. They are not planning the preventive action so that this type of failure should not occur at all. Considering the number of cranes of ACE with us, and repeated similar failure it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de a solution at the earliest." f. Email dated 16.11.2017 sent by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner: "Subject: Failure of Trolley rollers of ACE5040 crane at Kalpataru. Imp- Sourabh ji, kindly go through the trail email. Will appreciate your immediate action and intervention as direction. It is said that the issue is discussed persist even now and in fact our productivity. Regards Rohit Katyal | Director." g. Email dated 12.10.2017 sent by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner: "Subject: Failure of Trolley rollers of ACE5040 crane at Kalpataru. Dear Sir Pls refer the discussion we had on the subject, such failure is clear case of manufacturing defect. We are lucky to survive without any damage to man and material. This has happened twice and we have taken it very seriously on the product. Request your immediate attention towards the same." 10. The Petitioner in their rejoinder submitted that the Corporate Debtor has purchased machineries and also taken machineries for rent from the Petitioner during the period 31.01.2013 to 31.01.2019 and invoices were raised to the extent of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was on account. However, such submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that each invoice is based on separate purchase order and payment has been made towards individual invoices. In fact, for some of the invoices advance payments were made by the Corporate Debtor and balance was paid subsequently and the same is evident from the first two purchase orders annexed to the Petitioner (Page 19 and 20). Hence, the contention of the Corporate Debtor that all the payments were made in respect of the invoices claimed in the demand notice is true. Hence, this Bench is of the view that there is no debt as claimed by the Petitioner, in respect of the first portion of the claim. 12. Coming to the second portion of the claim where some rental dues were claimed, the statement of account produced by the Corporate Debtor (Page No. 55 of the reply) reveals that there is no outstanding payable by the Corporate Debtor. When we go through the ledger account of the Corporate Debtor in the books of the Petitioner, it shows a balance of Rs. 3,26,389/- as receivable from the Corporate Debtor but the Invoice No. SP2/1900009 dated 03.04.2018 for Rs. 1,98,949/-, as claimed in the petition is no....