TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (IB)-2160(ND)2019. By the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority rejected Application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC in short). 2. The Appeal claims and it is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Corporate Debtor - M/s. Masters India Pvt. Ltd. had approached the Appellant- Operational Creditor M/s. Micra Systems Pvt. Ltd. in October, 2016 for development of GST Portal and presentation of the same to GSTN for grant of License as GSP. According to the Appellant, the Operational Creditor gave services to the Corporate Debtor on this count and Operational Creditor built solutions for the Corporate Debtor which continued till November, 2017. In November, 2017, the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ebtor did not go to any Court/Forum to follow up the legal notices. The Appeal claims that subsequently the Appellant sent demand notice under Section 8 of IBC on 22nd May, 2019 (Page 240 of the Appeal). The Respondent replied vide reply dated 06th June, 2019 repeating the same concocted and irrelevant allegations raised in the legal notices. 3. Then the Appellant filed Application under Section 7 of IBC. According to the Appellant, Rs. 88,37,700/- are debt outstanding and application has been wrongly dismissed. 4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. The Learned Counsel is referring to the various documents, emails and notices to submit and argue that the issues which were raised by the Respondent-Corporate Debtor in the emai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Corporate Debtor prior to the issuance of the demand notice, of course, by filing section 9(3) (b), the Operational Creditor claimed that no notice of disputes has been raised by the Corporate Debtor but for the reasons discussed above, we find that the affidavit shown by the Operational Creditor under Section 9(3)(b) is not in consonance with the averment made in the application filed by the Operational Creditor in which he claimed that the Corporate Debtor by filing the reply raised the disputes on the point that the legal notice had already been sent to the Operational Creditor by Corporate Debtor prior to the issuance of the demand notice." 6. The notice under Section 8 was sent on 22nd May, 2019. Before that on 7th November, 2....