TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reditor') is a Private Company, limited by Shares bearing CIN: U45201RJ2008PTC026607 incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 22.05.2008. Its Authorised Capital is Rs. 1,00,000/- and Paid Up capital is Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Company has changed its name from M/s. Rheem Matrix Estate Pvt. Ltd. to its current name i.e. M/s. Rheem Matrix Pvt. Ltd. The Company is engaged in the business of dealing in consultancy services in the field of Procurement & Project Management, Aviation projects & supplies etc. (2) M/s. SI2 Microsystems Pvt. Ltd. ('Respondent/Corporate Debtor') is a Private Company limited by Shares bearing CIN: U85110KA1993PTC015018 was incorporated on 08.12.1993. Its Authorised Capital is Rs. 51,00,00,000/- and Paid up Capital is Rs. 49,99,60,110/-. The Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, delivery and offer solutions and supports for chip design, integrated systems for military etc. (3) As per the Petitioner, the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor have entered into a CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT on 1st of July 2016 where the Corporate Debtor desired to engage the Operational Creditor to provide certain consultancy service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a Reply to aforesaid Demand Notice dated 14.02.2020 from the Corporate Debtor wherein it is stated that the Corporate Debtor is not liable to pay for services rendered by the Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor raised these frivolous disputes/issue after the receipt of Demand Notice and no correspondence prior in time to the Demand Notice about the dispute/issue has been raised or brought on record. (7) It is stated that the aforesaid frivolous dispute/issue raised by the Corporate Debtor is 'not covered under Pre-existing dispute' in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (Civil Appeal No. 9405/2017). (8) The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Ordinance 2020, came into effect which suspends fresh bankruptcy proceeding against the entity impacted because of Covid-19, wherein the protection is given in Section 10A of the Code for any default arising on or after 25 March 2020. But the same is not applicable on the default occurred prior to 25.03.2020 and the same is evident from the explanation appended to Section 10A of the Code. However, in the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....March 2020. Therefore, the Application made subsequent to 25th March 2020, for the default less than one crore is not maintainable. (2) It is stated that the consultancy agreement which the Petitioner is relying on is not duly stamped. As per Section 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act 1957, no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted as evidence in the court of law. In the present case the said Consultancy Agreement, which is Petitioner is relying upon is subject to stamp duty under Article 5 (j) of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. (3) The extract of Section 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is as hereunder: 34. Instrument not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person. In view of the above, the said unstamped consultancy Agreement which the Petitioner is relying upon is non-est in the eyes of law and shall not arise for consideration before this Adjudicating Authority. (4) The alleged claim of Rs. 14,16,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis of- a. The records available with an information utility, if any, or (b) other relevant documents, including- (i) A contract for the supply of goods and services with corporate debtor; (ii) An invoice demanding payment for goods and services supplied to the corporate debtor; (iii) An order of a court or tribunal that has adjudicated upon the non-payment of a debt, if any, or; (iv) Financial accounts (7) The Petitioner has not produced even one document to prove the existence of debt. Unless there is debt, there can't be any default. No justifiable reason has been given as to how there is a debt due and payable. Further, it is pertinent to mention herein that the NCLT, Chennai division Bench in CP/1029/IB/2018 in the matter of M/s. ICT Service Management Solution (India) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ensure Support Services (India) Ltd. vide its order dated 25.10.2018 dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioner on the ground of non-filing of invoices along with the Application. (8) From the bare perusal of the Balance sheet it can be seen that the Respondent is having a Paid up Capital of Rs. 49.99 crores and revenues of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of parts for the T-90 tanks, Semiconductors for the Agni and Akash missile projects, R73E Missile Refurbishment program, and Missile Test benches for the Mirage-2000 upgrade program. (2) It is stated that the Respondent Company is the only private company in India having a licence from the Government of India for undertaking Missile Refurbishment and upgradation. It exports sophisticated microelectronic products to USA, Israel, France and Russia. The Company is the sole Indian technology partner in the MeitY - IIT Madras project for design and fabless fabrication of the Photonics Processor chip. This project is under the PMO and is meant for design of the next generation chip for use in multiple defense applications by India. It is also deeply involved with India's space program as its micro-electronic and SIP capabilities are the only one of its kind in the country. (3) It is stated that the Company has an unblemished track record for having rendered services to Indian Defence Sector, Indian Space Research Organisation. Having built so much of reputation and recognition etc., in the industry and in the country, there is no reason for the Respondent to make an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancy fees, it is seen that Petitioner has filed by way of evidence, a copy of its Ledger at Annexure P 6 to the Petition, and a Tax Invoice dated 30.09.2018 for an amount of Rs. 2,36,000/-, which shows the Corporate Debtor as the Buyer. On a perusal of the evidence filed, we may mention that while the existence of a Consultancy Agreement is not denied by the Corporate Debtor, and we have considered the same to be valid, that in itself does imply that services were actually rendered by the Petitioner during the period of the alleged default. 9. As regards the Tax Invoice dated 30.09.2018 filed for an amount of Rs. 2,36,000/- it is seen that the same does not bear details of the period for which it is raised. Various important columns on the Invoice are blank, and most important, the Invoice has no proof of service to or receipt by the Corporate Debtor. It is a one sided computer generated document, and unless the same has been acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor, it cannot constitute evidence of service having been rendered for the period comprised in this Invoice, For the remaining amount out of Rs. 14,16,000/- and interest also, such Invoices have not been filed. We may agree ....