TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- on 30.11.2018, Rs. 7,08,000/- on 27.12.2018 and Rs. 8,14,200/- on 10.01.2019 respectively, the total dues was Rs. 33,66,640/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Only) excluding interest. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the Company Petition, are as follows: (1) M/s. Sunil Healthcare Limited ('Petitioner/Operational Creditor') is a Company incorporated on 05.02.1973 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with CIN: L24302DL1973PLC189662 and having its registered address at #38E/252-A,. Vijay Tower, Shahpur Jat, NewDelhi-110049. The Company inter alia is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of capsule shells and is one of the leading suppliers of the capsule shells in India. (2) M/s.Beloorbayir Biotech Limited ('Respondent/Corporate Debtor') is a Company incorporated on 02.03.2005 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with CIN: U73100KA2005PLC035741and having its registered office at#4112, Utkarsha, K.R. Road, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560070. The Authorised Share Capital of the Company is Rs. 67,00,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Crores Only) and the Paid-up Share Capital....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is apparent that the Corporate Debtor neither has any inclination, nor any means to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 53,66,640/- to the Operational Creditor. (7) In the above circumstances, the Operational Creditor issued the Demand Notice dated 29.11.2018 in Form-3 and Form-4, whereby, the Operational Creditor called upon the Corporate Debtor to make the payment of the outstanding amount. (8) Corporate Debtor vide its reply dated 07.12.2018, though accepted the claim of Operational Creditor but sought further time for clearing the balance dues. It is stated that the Corporate Debtor has paid an amount of Rs. 20,22,200/- against the liability of Rs. 53,66,640/- and thus had defaulted in terms of the provisions of the Code. (9) It is stated that in spite of discussions on several occasions, the Corporate Debtor had not made payment against the balance outstanding due. In the above circumstances, the Operational Creditor submits that there is a sum of Rs. 53,66,640/- besides interest(r) 18% p.a. (Rs. 4,33,464/- till 29.11.2018 i.e. the date on which default notice was issued) is due from the Corporate Debtor. After subsequent payment of Rs. 20,22,200/-, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent in terms of Section 8(2) of the Code undertook to clear the dues upon verification of its accounts. (5) On the premise of Respondent agreeing to repay the dues as per its accounts being communicated to the Applicant within the prescribed period of ten days itself, the instant application is liable to be dismissed. (6) It is further stated that the Respondent has not only responded vide a time-bound letters that it would repay the amounts due but has also made repayment of monies payable as per its statement of accounts as elaborated hereunder. (7) It is stated that, subsequent to the response of Respondent dated 07.12.2018, the Applicant sent a counter reply dated 18.12.2018 to the response of the Respondent in which the Applicant itself acknowledged a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) and once again called upon the Respondent to make good the dues. The same followed by a reminder notice dated 11.01.2019 in which the Applicant has acknowledged further apayments of Rs. 7,08,000/- and Rs. 8,14,200/- made by the Respondent to the Applicant. (8) Despite the repayment of dues made by the Respondent, the Applicant through convo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at IBC, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P.Ltd. Vs. Equipment Conductors and Cables Ltd., (CA No. 9597 of 2018) dated 23rd October, 2018, (2018) 147 CLA 112 (SC) inter alia, held that existence of undisputed debt is sine qua non of initiating CIRP. As per para 34 of judgement, it is stated that Adjudicating Authority, while examining an application filed under Section 9 of Code, will have to determine: i. Whether there is an 'operational debt' as defined exceeding Rs. l Lakh? ii. Whether documentary evidence furnished with the application shows that the aforesaid debt is due and payable and has not yet been paid? iii. Whether there is existence of dispute between the parties or the, record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before receipt of demand notice of the unpaid operational debt in relation to such dispute? If any one of aforesaid conditions is lacking, the application would have to be rejected. 6. On perusal of the Ledger Account of the Respondent corroborated by the Bank Account statements evincing those l....