2021 (3) TMI 988

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s alleged by the  applicant, towards the material supplied by the Applicant.  The  details  of transactions leading to the filing of this  application as averred by the Applicant are as follows: i.  The applicant submits that on 18.02.2017, National Informatics Centre Services Inc. ("NICSI") received an order from the Indian Institute of Technology, Ropar ("IIT  Ropar")  and  on that basis,  NICSI  issued  a purchase order to the Respondent outsourcing all Optical Fibre and Data Cable delivery and installation work. Thereafter, the Respondent after receiving  the  purchase  orders,  outsourced  the above-mentioned optical fibre and data cable  delivery and installation work to the Applicant. ii. The applicant submits that it agreed to deliver the  networking items at Indian Institute of Technology,  Barapool Village, Ropar, Punjab as per the purchase  orders received by the Respondent. The Applicant  further submitted that it further agreed to do a final  survey based on the designs provided by the OEMs  and submit the bill of material and LAN dr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vii. The applicant stated that the Respondent sent a letter  dated 18.07.2018 to  the  applicant  and terminated the purchase orders. viii.  That  the  applicant  sent  a  Legal  Notice  dated 30.05.2019, in response to which it received a reply from the Respondent dated 25.06.2019, applicant further submitted that multiple requests were made to the Respondent regarding unpaid debt. ix. That applicant submits that a statutory Demand notice under  section 8  of IBC, 2016  vide  dated 15.01.2020 was delivered to the Respondent. It was further  submitted by the  applicant that a reply wrongly dated 15.01.2020 received by applicant on 20.01.2020  from  the  Respondent  wherein,  the Respondent stated the existence of dispute. 2. Consequent to  the notice issued by this Tribunal,  the  Counsel for the Respondent filed its reply Affidavit on behalf  of the Respondent stating that: i.  The Respondent submitted that Purchase Orders were issued by National Informatics Centre Services Inc.  ("NICSI") to Respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of IIT Ropar (end buyer). vi. The Respondent stated that payment of Rs. 1,24,21,990/- dated 29.09.2017 and Rs. 24,75,609/- dated 14.05.2018 has been made to Applicant and a balance payment of Rs. 6,79,400/- is  payable to Applicant which was  asked to be collected. That the applicant in the rejoinder notice 26.08.2019  stated  that  it  would  not  settle  for anything less than what was demanded and did not collect the same. The Respondent states that it is willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 6,79,400/. 3. The Counsel  for  the  Applicant  has  filed  its  written submissions in respect to the submissions made in the  application: • That the Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations  Private  Limited  VS.  Kirusa  Software  Private Limited [ PARA 24, 40 AND 45]., wherein, it was held that the dispute raised should be pre-existing (i.e., it should exist before the receipt of the demand notice or invoice). That the dispute should be real and not a sham, frivolous, vexatious, spurious or a mere bluster. • That the Hon'ble NCLA....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontract and requested the Operational Creditor to handover the site to Corporate Debtor owing to deficiency in services and non-performance of Contract as stated in the Termination letter dated 18.07.2018, along with that the Operational  Creditor prior to  the issuance of Statutory demand  notice  under  section  8  of  IBC,  2016  dated 15.01.2020, sent a legal notice dated 30.05.2019 in respect to recovery  of its  dues  which was  duly replied by the Corporate Debtor vide its reply dated 25.06.2019 stating that the amount claimed by the Operational Creditor is disputed owing to non- performance of 5 Purchase orders. 8.  It is further pertinent to mention that the deficiency in  services was raised by the Corporate Debtor in the Email Trail communication vide dated  01.02.2018,  21.05.2018,  28.05.2018 and 14.06.2018 between  the  Operational creditor and Corporate Debtor. Secondly, the Termination Letter  dated 18.07.2018,  wherein  the  Corporate Debtor  terminated the 5 Purchase orders owing to Non-performance  of  contract  and&n....