TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Wireless Solutions company engaged in the business of Data Processing, Operation and Management of data, processing or tabulation of all types of data of other firms undertaken by a computer and providing services on hourly basis for processing tabulation of data. Similarly, the Corporate Debtor is a Company incorporated on 14.08.2012 under Companies Act, 1956 and is a subsidiary of Essel Group. Its registered office is at 513/A, 5th Floor, Kohinorr City, Kirol Road, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070, MH. this Bench has jurisdiction to deal with this petition. 3. The Petitioner has been providing its services to various clients/companies, and had arrangement with the Corporate Debtor to provide bulk SMS services. The Petitioner also raised several invoices from time to time which includes Bulk Messages Charges and Inter Operator Charges. As per terms and conditions of the invoices, the Corporate Debtor was liable to pay the amounts within 10 days from the date of each invoice, however, no amount is received within the said period. 4. The Petitioner further submits that they had rendering uninterrupted services to the Corporate Debtor and timely payments were being pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmed and admitted to the Petitioner that they are in receipt of invoices for the month of Oct-Nov, 2015, however, there has been some differences in SMS gap, as the invoices reflect the total SMS count to be 25,32,815 as against 17,15,018 as per Corporate Debtor record. The Petitioner pointed out that the Corporate Debtor did not raised any issue or refused to pay invoice amount, but only raised a query on the alleged differences in SMS count. 7. The Petitioner also submits that vide its email on 12.02.2016 and 21.03.2016 informed the Corporate Debtor that the alleged invoices that 02.02.2016 and 01.03.2016 have been dispatched to the Corporate Debtor and requested to make payment as per defined payment terms. However, despite of aforesaid invoices and emails, the Corporate Debtor neither responded to said emails nor repay the outstanding dues. 8. Since, the Petitioner failed to repay the outstanding dues, the Petitioner vide email dated 22.03.2016 forwarded the details of all outstanding invoices with request to clear them at the earliest in order to use the services without interruption. The Corporate Debtor vide email dated 28.03.2016 responded that they are checking the logs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich was never provided by the Petitioner. 13. The email exchanged between the parties clearly shows that the Corporate Debtor continuously request the Petitioner to assist in opening of link/documents which was sent by the Petitioner as the petitioner was unable to open the same and send the logs. The Corporate Debtor also submits that the Petitioner has stopped rendering its services from 16.05.2016. Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor replied to the Demand Notice on 08.01.2019 denying all the allegations/contention made therein. 14. The Corporate Debtor submitted there were pre-existing dispute between the parties which is evident from the email dated 04.02.2016 and the material available on record and hence the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine with costs. The Corporate Debtor also submitted that the Operational Debt of the Petitioner arises out of the invoices for the Month of Oct-Nov 2015 and Jan 2016. The Corporate Debtor further made allegations regarding the signature and affixing of seal on the invoices by the Petitioner. The relevant terms and conditions pertaining to submission of the invoices contained in the said Work Order are reproduced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rate as per the revised proposal. Further, the Petitioner has provided logs to the Corporate Debtor as the clarification on the SMS unit mention on the outstanding invoices. ADDITIONAL REPLY FILED BY THE CORPORATE DEBTOR 18. In addition to the reply filed by the Corporate Debtor, the Corproate Debtor filed additional reply, thereby submits that the claim is entirely barred by limitation as the invoices pertains to the year 2015-2016 and the present petition belatedly on 07.05.2019. Therefore, the Corporate sought to dismiss the Petition. WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE PETITIONER 19. The Petitioner claim that the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay to pay Rs. 17,54,240.10 alongwith interest @12% p.a. in respect of outstanding operational debt for providing Bulk SMS services. The Corporate Debtor unilaterally stop paying services from July 2015. The Corporate Debtor vide email on 04.02.2016 acknowledged the Petitioner that they are in the receipt of invoices and request for clarification on the difference on SMS count. The counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of Pedersen Consultants India Private Limited vs. Nitesh Estates Limited passed by National Company Law Appe....