TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in paying Rs. 2,30,62,247.90/(Rupees Two Crore Thirty Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Two Hundred Forty Seven point Ninety only). Hence this petition is filed under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, R/w Rule 6 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, seeking admission of the Petition, initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, granting moratorium and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional as prescribed under the Code and Rules thereon. 2. The brief averments stated in the Petition are that: a. The Applicant Company / Operational Creditor i.e. Rajkumar Brothers and Production Private Limited, is a company duly incorporated on 8th September, 2016 under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional creditor dated 17.07.2016 to 20.07.2016 evidencing the commencement of work which is attached herewith and marked as Annexure 5. e. Further, the Promoters and Directors of the Operational Creditor, from time to time requested the Corporate Debtor to enter into an agreement and issue the Work / Purchase Order as was discussed in the meeting held on 13 th July, 2016. However, the Corporate Debtor every time used to avoid entering into an Agreement and issuing the Work Order just by saying over phone that it will execute the agreement and issue purchase order very shortly. f. It is averred that Corporate Debtor with the malicious intention, directed over the phone to the Operational Creditor that agreement shall be exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d showing concern about not receiving the signed work order from the corporate debtor since 78 days. However, corporate debtor in reply to the email sent by the operational creditor on 30.09.2016 as a formality sent the signed work order to the operational creditor on 06.10.2016 which was back dated as 06.09.2016. j. It is averred that the work order dated 06.09.2016 was sent by corporate debtor is only to defraud the operational creditor because of the fact that the work order dated 06.09.2016 was served on 06.10.2016 with a termination date as on 08.10.2016 and the fact that the operational creditor was not even existing as on the date of the work order. k. It is averred that as on 30 th September, 2016 approximately 90%....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ebtor), the Corporate Debtor continued to instruct and direct the Operational Creditor to continue and execute the works at various sites of the Corporate Debtor till the first week of November, 2016. However, when the Operational Creditor had finished almost 80% of the works by that time and started asking for the payments for the works executed. The Corporate Debtor with malafide intentions and to defraud the Operational Creditor in a planned way on 17^th November, 2016, terminated the work order. o. It is averred that Corporate Debtor has assured the Operational Creditor over phone call that it will clear all the dues for the works already executed and for the supply & installations of the goods and articles at various sites of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th regard to the operational debt which is committed default by corporate debtor. 4. The notice was served on the corporate debtor. Postal track record is filed through Memo. PCS contended that corporate debtor has not replied or failed to defend. The claim is within limitation. There is no representation or reply by the Corporate Debtor. was served with notice before admission. However, corporate debtor remained absent and it did not contest the claim. 5. In view of the above we are of the considered view that the operational creditor has been able to establish un disputed operational debt against corporate debtor and the corporate debtor has been in default with regard to the payment of dues to the operational creditor amounting to ....