TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent Murti Udyog Limited is a company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 10133-36, Model Basti Industrial Area, Near Filmistan Cinema Delhi - 110005. Since the registered office of the respondent corporate debtor is in Delhi, this Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place is the Adjudicating Authority in relation to the prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency resolution process in respect of respondent corporate debtor under sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code. 4 . It is the case of applicant that J.P. engineers, a partnership firm had supplied Aluminium Ingots to the Respondent Company as per the orders placed by it from time to time. It is stated that after the supply of products, three invoices citing the principal amount were raised by J.P. Engineers, partnership firm in the following manner: Sr. No. Date of Invoice Invoice Number Amount of Invoices 1 27/07/2015 SIT 37,97,550/- 2 23/10/2015 62 35,06,204/- 3 24/10/2015 63 35,09,715/- Total 1,08,13,469/- The firm had also issued six debit notes on various dates as detailed in the application betwee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and defect in the notice, the concluding part of the demand notice dated 13.06.2017 is reproduced below: "---------------- 5. The undersigned, hereby, attaches a certificate from an information utility confirming that no record of a dispute raised in relation to the relevant operational debt has been filed by any person at any information utility. (if applicable)- Not applicable The undersigned request you to unconditionally repay the unpaid operational debt (in default) in full within ten days from the receipt of this letter failing which we shall initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of Murti Udyog Limited. Your Sincerely SD/- Sharad Tyagi Advocate/Legal Advisor Fair & Just, Advocates & Solicitors 121, Niti Khand-III Indirapuram Ghaziabad-201 014" The concluding part of Form 3, however, is clearly at variance, which is as follows: "------------- 5. The undersigned, hereby, attaches a certificate from an information utility confirming that no record of a dispute raised in relation to the relevant operational debt has been filed by any pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as the demand notice dated 13.06.2017 issued under section 8 is not in accordance with the required Form No. 3 and has been issued by an Advocate with no whisper of holding any position with or in relation to the operational creditor, the application can be rejected on that count alone. 12. The other objection raised by the Respondent is that there has been manipulation and falsification of accounts by the petitioner and the applicant had concealed the fact of dispute between the parties and there is no amount due to the respondent. On the contrary it is pleaded that the applicant is liable to pay outstanding dues to the respondent. It is submitted that there was no agreement and/or understanding for payment of interest in as much as the entire business transaction was of an open, mutual, running account with reciprocal demands, wherein each of the parties were sellers and/or purchasers at some point in time and each of the parties owed some amount of money at some point in time. It is emphasised that these facts have not been disputed by the applicant in their rejoinder. 13. Further it has been submitted by the respondent that the petitioner had earlier lodged a FIR bearin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctober, 2015. However the first debit note dated 31.10.2015 towards interest on the principal amount was shown as Rs. 39,26,425/-. It was convincingly pointed out that such huge amount of interest over 39 lacs cannot accrue on the claimed principal amount, when the three invoices for the total principal amount were raised only on 27th July, 23rd October and 24th October, 2015. In no stretch of imagination accrual of interest during a short period of a month or two will exceed 39 lacs. The aforesaid claim of interest cannot therefore accrue solely from the three invoices, in question, as claimed in the application (Form-5). That apart there is no document to show that the six debit notes unilaterally sent by the applicant towards interest were acknowledged by the respondent. Respondent has disputed the claim inter alia with the contention that no ledger account was filed along with original application nor there was any material to demonstrate the previous transactions nor were there any agreement and/or understanding in support of payment of interest. In this scenario the amount of interest, as specifically claimed in the application (Form-5), is not free from dispute. 18. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een that inconsistent claims have been lodged in the present application and in the FIR. Moreover there have been reciprocal demands and allegation of manipulation of accounts. The respondent has thus never admitted the debt and in the contrary has raised a counter claim as due and recoverable from applicant after conciliation of accounts. The accounts in question are complex running accounts long since the year 2010. There is thus confusion about the actual amount of default of debt. In such financial dealings continued long since the year 2010, existence of dispute cannot be ruled out particularly when the amount claimed in the ledger account has been disputed for long. Alleged liability has been disputed from time to time for which parties had also met to trash out the differences. There had been demands to reconcile the accounts. The applicant has itself attached in its rejoinder an e-mail dated 31st December 2015 in which the applicant had tried to settle the matter with respondent which indicates that there have been some issues between the parties regarding payments since long and which requires a complete trial and investigation in respect of the respective claims of both t....