TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Three and Eleven Paisa only fell due since 27.11.2017. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the Company Petition as well as Synopsis of the Petition filed by the Petitioner, are as follows: (1) M/s. Shyam Spectra Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner/Operational Creditor') is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 09.05.2008 under the Companies Act, 1956 with CIN:U72300DL2008PTC177873 and having its Registered Office at A-60, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi -110028. The Company is engaged in the business of telecom services having all India license to provide 'High Speed Internet/Broadband services and other telecom services' and has good reputation in the business circle. (2) M/s. Micronova Network Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent/Corporate Debtor') is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 12.01.2010 under the Companies Act, 1956 with CIN: U72200KA2010PTC052144 and having its Registered Office at No. 17, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560004. The Nominal Share Capital of the Company is Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Only) and the Paid-up Ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Insufficient'. Therefore, the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 12,88,277.20/- along with an interest calculated @ 18% per annum, amounting to Rs. 2,54,125.91/- totalling to Rs. 15,42,403.11/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Three and Eleven Paisa only) to the Operational Creditor. 3. The Respondent has opposed the Company Petition by filing the Statement of Objections dated 10.06.2019 by inter alia contending as follows: (1) It is alleged that the instant Petition is fled based on the non-existing and baseless claim and the same is not maintainable in the eye of law or facts, as the Corporate Debtor is not liable to pay any amount as alleged and claimed in the Application. Further, the claims of the Operational Creditor are completely imaginary and not flowing from the existing rights in any manner and the entire averments are not based on the factual aspects and documents. (2) It is stated that the Corporate Debtor is involved in the business of providing internet services to end customers. Micronova was buying bandwidth in bulk from Shyam and redistribution to end customers. The Corporate Debtor is not end user in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been issued to M/s. Micronova Helious Networking Solutions Private Limited, which is sister Company of the Corporate Debtor. Thereby, the Operational Creditor itself is liable to pay amount to the Corporate Debtor. After adjusting the Credit Notes payable to both the sister Companies of the Corporate Debtor, even after deducting the alleged due amount claimed in the present Petition, the Operational Creditor itself is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 17,73,767/-. Further, as on date the Corporate Debtor has paid total amount of Rs. 13,03,373/- to the Operational Creditor. Thereby, the Corporate Debtor not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the Operational Creditor and that the Operational Creditor itself liable/owe to pay an amount of Rs. 17,73,767/-. (5) It is further contended that due to continuous deficiency of service and improper installation and cabling, day by day, the Respondent lost its customer background and sustained loss in the business. The Petitioner knowingly well about the huge competition in the business and in spite of requests to rectify the issues and to provide good service failed in providing the services as expected. Email correspondences with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e carefully perused the pleadings of both the parties along with extant provisions of the Code and the Rules made thereunder. 5. Shri Varun Tallam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the Company Petition, as briefly stated supra, has further submitted that the dispute raised by the Respondent is baseless and while paying part payment, they cannot deny remain outstanding amount. The Petition is filed in accordance with extant provisions of Code and the rules made thereunder. 6. Shri Manjunatha B., learned Counsel for the Respondent, while opposing the Company Petition, as briefly stated supra in their reply, has further submitted that the Application itself is not maintainable as the debt and default is disputed and it is an ongoing service between the parties, as the Corporate Debtor is in the business of providing internet services to end customers. The end customers have raised so many complaints with regard to the service rendered by them for the service taken from the Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor also time and again has brought to the notice of the Operational Creditor about the deficiency of the service. However, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting the alleged due amount claimed in the present Petition, the Operational Creditor itself is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 17,73,767/-. Further, as on date the Corporate Debtor has paid total amount of Rs. 13,03,373/- to the Operational Creditor. Therefore it is contended that the Operational Creditor itself liable/owe to pay an amount of Rs. 17,73,767/- to the Respondent. 8. It is a settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding amount but it can be invoked to initiate CIRP for justified reasons as per objective of the Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited, (2018) 1 SCC 353 has inter alia, held that IBC, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. In another latest judgement rendered in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v. Equipment Conductors and Cables Ltd., (CA No. 9597 of 2018) dated 23rd October, 2018, (2018) 147 CLA 112 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia held that existence of undisputed debt is sine qua non of initiating CIRP. As per para 34 of judgment, it is stated that Adjudicating Authority, while e....