TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1810
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Centre for Vocational Training and Entrepreneurship studies, Sournen Chaudhry (Director), Sukul Barua ( Director), Arindam Chaudhry (Director), Vishal Gupta (Director), Sanjeev Mishra (Director), Naveen Chamoli (Authorized Signatory), Sandeep Ghosh (Authorized Signatory), Saurabh Chatterjee ( Authorized Signatory) For Operational Creditor: Md. Shajahan Islam, Advocate For Corporate Debtor: Mr. Uttam Dutt, Advocate, Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate ORDER Per: S. K. Mohapatra, Member 1. This is an application filed by M/s Sonitech Travels Co. a proprietorship Firm, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'the Code') read with rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isting of Section 4 to Section 77 pertains to Insolvency Resolution and Liquidation for corporate persons. Corporate person has been defined in Section 3 (7) of the Code which includes the following: i. A company as defined in clause (20) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013, ii. A limited liability partnership, as defined in clause (n) of sub section (1) of section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, or iii. Any other person incorporated with limited liability under any law for the time being in force (but shall not include any financial service provider). 5. However PART-III of the Code deals with insolvency resolution and Bankruptcy for individuals and partnership firms. Respondent No. 2 to 9 have been describe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely to the Applicant. Copies of all receipts signed by the applicant as well as copies of afore stated demand drafts have been placed on record. It is strenuously argued that in view of the settlement the present claim of Rs. 18,60,921/- raised in the application is totally incorrect and not payable by the Respondent No. 1 company. It is further stated that since the applicant has deliberately trying to conceal the fact of settlement, the applicant is liable to be punished under Section 76 of the Code. 9. The Respondent has enclosed the receipts dated 02.01.2017, 30.01.2017, 07.02.2017 and 07.03.2017 in its reply. The text of each of the receipts is almost similar. For proper appreciation of the case the content of one of the receipts is r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sclosed complete and correct facts of the case. The discloser in the requisite Form 5 is not full and true. Instead of claiming remaining unpaid settlement amount, if any, the applicant has claimed in Part-IV of Forrn-5 entire original due amount of Rs. 18,60,921, without mentioning the settlement and appropriation of payments already received. 11. Secondly, the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code was issued in the present case on 14.10.2017. The Respondent, however, has enclosed four receipts stamped and signed by the applicant firm, dated 02.01.2017, 30.01.2017, 07.02.2017 and 07.03.2017 respectively which clearly shows that the settlement and payments mentioned therein were made much prior to the issuance of demand notice under Se....