AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thousand Six only). 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the Company Petition, and in detailed Summary, which are relevant to the issue in question, are as follows: (a) M/s. NWCC Supply Chain Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner/Operational Creditor') is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 26.04.2016, under the Companies Act with CIN: U74140DL2010PTC210136 and having its registered office situated at 1002, Pragati Tower, 26, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008. The Company is inter alia engaged in the provision of services of Re-Packaging, Transportation of Goods from one location to another and is generally engaged by large Corporate Companies having huge Godowns and require Re-Packaging & Transportation Services from their main Warehouses/Godowns to various different locations of its Clients, etc. (b) M/s. Metro Cash and Carry India Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent/Corporate Debtor) is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 18.01.2001, under the Companies Act, 1956 with CIN: U51909KA2001PTC028483, and having its registered office situated at Survey No. 26/3. A' Block, Ward No. 9, Industrial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Debtor demanding its payment for Rs. 99,56,204/- and notified that in the event of non-payment of the outstanding dues, the Operational Creditor would be constrained to charge interest @ 24% p.a. on the delayed payments. Despite the receipt of the said letter, the Corporate Debtor did not make any payment. Similary communication issued on 10.09.1218 to the Corporate Debtor Company. Despite receipt of these letters, the Corporate Debtor did not make any payments. Further, it is alleged that the Operational Creditor has reliably learnt that Corporate Debtor had deliberately fudged the books of accounts and made concocted entries in order to dispute the payments due and outstanding to the Operational Creditor. (g) Despite multiple reminders, the Corporate Debtor had been avoiding the payment of the outstanding debt. Subsequently, the Operational Creditor sent a Legal Notice dated 25.12.2018 to the Corporate Debtor calling upon it to make payment of its due amounting to Rs. 1,49,96,006/-. However, the Corporate Debtor at that time did not clear the dues of the Operational Creditor and had instead sent a reply dated 07.01.2019. The Corporate Debtor had not denied its liabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unter Affidavit dated 27.12.2019, by inter alia contending as follows: (a) The Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of the international wholesale giant, Metro Cash & Carry International GmbH, which has its headquarters in Germany. The Respondent is engaged in the business of wholesale and has 28 outlets spread across India. And it provides employment to over 4000 employees and has a Paid-up Capital of over Rs. 1300 Crores and is a financially stable going concern. Its annual turnover in the year 2018 was about Rs. 5800 Crore (Rupees Five Thousand Eight Hundred Crore). (b) The instant claim is wholly disputed, denied and it is also barred by time. And the Petition is filed with sole intention of harassing and arm-twisting the Respondent into settling a disputed claim before this Adjudicating Authority. The contractual relationship in question was terminated by the Respondent in 2014 itself and all dues owed to the Operational Creditor have already been settled and no payments pending to be paid. The Respondent previously had contractual relationships with the Operational Creditor and its sister concern named North West Carrying Company, LLP ('Sister Concern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re this Adjudicating Authority under the Code. There are several e-mail correspondences between the Operational Creditor and the Respondent to evidence the disputes between them, which clearly indicate that the dispute arose in the year 2014 itself. These e-mails further bring to light that several of the invoices raised by the Operational Creditor were false and were just made up, several invoices were raised without showing any proof of the services being actually rendered and double invoices were also raised during several instances. The Operational Creditor has never submitted proof of any document in support of the invoices. (f) There is nothing on record before this Adjudicating Authority annexed to the Application to show that the Respondent has acknowledged the alleged operational debt or even the amount claimed by the Operational Creditor. There has not been and can be no such acknowledgment as the Respondent had always disputed the alleged debt and disputed the veracity of the invoices raised by the Operational Creditor. Further, in the typed copy of the e-mail dated November 14, 2014 in Page Nos. 100 and 101 of the Application, the Respondent has categorically s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r submits that the instant Application is filed in accordance with law and the debt and default in question is not in dispute, and thus it is a fit case to initiate the CIRP by appointing IRP, imposing moratorium, etc. However, he expressed no objection to submit its claim with supported evidence to the Respondent to consider its claim in a dispassionate and impartial way since the services in question were admittedly taken by the Respondent without raising any issue of defective service at the relevant point of time. 7. Mr. V. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, while reiterating various averments made in the reply, as briefly stated supra, has further submitted that the instant Petition is filed by misusing the provisions of Code and it is also resorting to criminal cases filed against the Respondent. The Petitioner has not substantiated its claim and there is a pre-existing dispute. In the absence of sufficient proof submitted by the Petitioner, the Respondent is not in a position to examine the disputed claim and then take suitable decision. However, he expressed that he has no objection to re-consider the issue basing on the cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he invoices in question. Mere issue of limitation cannot be a dispute as contended by the Respondent. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the Respondent to settle the invoices in question rather than raising un-tenable grounds, that too after extracting services, after termination of the Agreements in question. Since the services of Petitioner was admittedly terminated from 31st January, 2015, the Petitioner, after protracted correspondence through various letters viz. 17.11.2017, 10.09.2018 etc., has finally resorted to issue Legal notice dated 25.12.2018 followed by earlier filing CP (IB) No. 107 of 2019 and further proceedings till date. So, the issue is continuous cause of action. Moreover, as per covenants made between the Parties, the nature of relationship between the Parties is stated to be of Principal-to-Principal basis. 10. It is true that since proceedings initiated under the provisions of Code are summary in nature and Adjudicating Authority cannot exceed its authority in entertaining and deciding disputed questions of fact. The instant Petition is basically filed with an intention to recover the disputed amounts, and that too after receiving part payment....