TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al), Ahmadabad Bench, Ahmadabad. Whereby the Application preferred by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (In Short I&B Code) has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the Operational Creditor (Appellant herein) has supplied ready MCC Concrete at various sites of the Corporate Debtor (Respondent herein) upon placing purchase order by the Corporate Debtor. Pursuant thereto the Operational Creditor had issued invoices upon the Corporate Debtor along with delivery challans. The delivery challans are signed and stamped by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor was earlier known as Mayfair Spaces Ltd. Hence, all the invoices and delivery challans were issued in the name of Mayfair Sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Corporate Debtor. The claim of the Operational Creditor is based on the invoices which are of 2013, whereas the application is filed on 15/01/2018. Thus, the claim is barred by limitation. 4. After hearing the parties, Ld. Adjudicating Authority held that Operational Creditor is maintaining a running account of the Corporate Debtor and as per the ledger account, the last payment of Rs. 12 lacs were made by the Corporate Debtor on 05/11/2015 and the Application is filed on 15/01/2018. Thus, the application is within limitation. Ld. Adjudicating Authority held that on 15/07/2013 and 18/10/2013 no order was placed by the Corporate Debtor, therefore, the invoices dated 15/07/2013 and 18/10/2013 bearing nos. 661 and 360 have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to establish that there is an Operational Debt of more than Rs. 1 lac due to it from the respondent. As per ledger only Rs. 70,165/- is due which is less than Rs. 1 lac. Therefore, the application under section 9 is not maintainable. ii. The respondent has never supplied the copy of ledger account to the appellant. The copy of the ledger account produced by the appellant is unsigned and source of procurement is not disclosed. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon. iii. The appellant has supplied the goods to Mayfair Corporate Park but erroneously raised the disputed bills to the respondent. Thus, there is a pre-existing dispute in regard to payment of these invoices. iv. The appellant has claimed Rs. 20,63....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Application, as the case may be, depending upon the factors mentioned in Section 9(5) of the Act." 10. In the light of this pronouncement firstly we examined whether there is an operational debt exceeding Rs. 1 lac as defined under Section 4 of the I&B Code. In the application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, it is mentioned that appellant has supplied ready-mix concrete material to respondent for their various construction sites from 30/09/2012 to 20/10/2014 for which various invoices were issued from time to time as against the total outstanding payment of Rs. 02,29,94,288/-. The respondent (Corporate Debtor) has paid a sum of Rs. 02,09,30,948/- and balance of Rs. 20,63,340/- is outstanding as on 11/11/2015. 11. The re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the appellant is forged or fabricated. We are of the view that the ledger account filed by the appellant is genuine and shows the true picture. Thus, it is a reliable document. 15. We have reconciled these ledger accounts. We noted that following 17 items are missing in the copy of ledger account filed by the respondent which are as under: 16. Following ledger account is filed by the Appellant, in this account above referred items are shown in the box however, these items are missing in the ledger account (See Page 97-102 of Appeal Paper Book) filed by the Respondent. 17. From the above referred ledger account maintained by the respondent we hold that as on 31/03/2017, operational debt Rs. 19,89,130/- was due and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccording to the appellant, the Mayfair Corporate Park is a construction project developed by Mayfair Spaces Ltd. (respondent) and thus they are associated entities. Therefore, the disputed invoices were rightly sent to the respondent. 20. As we have noted that the appellant is relying on the ledger account maintained by the respondent. In this ledger account the amount of disputed invoices are not shown. Therefore, we hold that there is no dispute between the parties in regard to the aforesaid invoices. Thus, we do not agree with the finding of ld. Adjudicating Authority that there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties. 21. Now, we have considered the objection of ld. counsel for the respondent that the claim is ....