TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;). 2. The Applicant, the Operational Creditor, is a company incorporated on 11.12.2009, under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having CIN No. U31909DL1971PLC005672, having its office at 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi-110020. 3. The Respondent, the Corporate Debtor, is a company incorporated on 27.12.1993, under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with CIN No. U74899DL1993PLC056633, having its registered office at 11/114 Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010. The Authorised Share Capital of the respondent company is Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and Paid Up Share Capital of the company is Rs. 1,36,94,060/- as per Master Data of the company. 4. It is the case of the Operational Creditor that the Corporate Debtor placed various purchase orders ("PO"), between 25 November, 2014 and 12 October, 2016, for supply of a variety of electrical equipment like ACBs, MCCBs, MCBs, etc. The Corporate Debtor was obligated to make payments within a period of 120 days from receipt of the respective last material lot. The copies of said PO have been annexed along with the application. 5. It is further stated that, the Operational Creditor supplied equipment vide v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ("CIRP") against the Respondent. 9. The applicant has annexed postal receipt, for the delivery of the said demand notice at the registered office of the Corporate Debtor, however, the same could not be delivered by post. Hence, the Operational Creditor sent the demand notice through email, on 6.07.2018 on the registered email id, as per the MCA master data of the Corporate Debtor. 10. After the delivery of demand notice sent under Section 8 of the Code, the Respondent has given its reply. In its reply to the said notice, the Corporate Debtor states that "I assure you, that Unilec shall make an upfront payment towards your dues within this month. I shall personally visit you with the cheque/demand draft for the above said amount along with a concrete repayment schedule towards the balance amount.... Amit Airy (Director)". 11. The applicant has stated that total debt due and payable is Rs. 2,01,63,267.13/- (Rupees Two Crore One Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Seven and Thirteen paisa), which includes Rs. 1,79,01,968.13/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Nine Lakhs One Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and Thirteen Paisa), towards principal outstanding and Rs. 22,61,299....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted malfunctioning immediately after the Corporate Debtor started delivering the switchboards supplied/delivered by the Operational Creditor, towards the said project. This issue became so critical that the Corporate Debtor's client BHEL themselves started communicating with the Operational Creditor via emails and telecoms to resolve issues at site. The copy of emails dated 08.07.2013, 06.07.2013, 29.04.2013 and 30.04.2013 in this regard have been annexed along with the reply. 16. The Corporate Debtor further states that, matter got out of its hands when BHEL failed to impress upon the Operational Creditor, the gravity of the problem was such that the, BHEL's client OP Jindal too started complaining about Operational Creditor's switchgear component and protection relays directly vide various calls and emails dated 18.12.2013, 08.12.2015, 12.12.2015 etc., but to no avail. The copies of said email have also been annexed along with the reply. 17. After the reply of the Corporate Debtor in the present case, the Operational Creditor has filed its rejoinder. In its rejoinder the Operational Creditor states that, the majority of emails placed on record in order to demonstra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a pre-existing dispute. 21. In "Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software (P) Limited- Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "40. ... Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defense which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defense is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application." In the present case, there was a pre-existing dispute, but the said pre-existing dispute was for the years 2013-14, i.e., prior to the present transaction. The transaction under consideration at present is free from any form of pre-existing dispute. Also, there is an admission to outstanding amount on the part of....