TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent (Central Railside Warehouse) for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against the Respondent. 2. The Applicant has averred as follows: a. On 25.08.2009 agreement was entered into by and between the corporate debtor and the Operational creditor for a period of 2 years whereby the operational creditor was awarded the contract of handling and transportation of foodgrains, fertlizers, cement, salt, sugar and other commodities etc. at Hatia (Ranchi), Jharkhand. b. During the pendency of the contracts the Corporate Debtor did not pay for outstanding invoices which were raised by operational! creditor in relation to two agreements covering for the period from 02.02.2013 to 17.08.2013 for carr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of two years. f. On 16.12.2011 the Operational Creditor again as per the said contract dated 01.12.2011 had to pay 50% of the security deposit i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- at the time of award of contract and the remaining 50% of the security deposit was to be deducted from the admitted bills. The same is further clarified by the letter dated 16.12.2011 of the corporate Debtor. The operational creditor paid Rs. 5,00,000/- as security deposit at the time of award of contract, and Rs. 4,12,580.00 were deducted from the bills. Therefore, a total of Rs. 9,12,580 was paid by the Operational Creditor as security deposit to the corporate debtor which amount was never refunded by corporate debtor to Operational Creditor even after the expiry of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....001/- hence the respondent withheld the amount as per the terms and condition of the agreement and indemnity bond furnished by the operational creditor of Rs. 35,47,048/- plus Rs. 9,42,001/- thereby aggregating Rs. 44,89,049/- and released the balance amount of Rs. 12,23,379.00 to Shri Balaji Transport on 16.02.2016. Hence there is no pending amount to the Operational Creditor. c. The respondent contends that the petitioner failed to perform his duty as per agreement dated 25.08.2009 wherein they have agreed that they will be entirely responsible for the safe custody and protection of the said good/materials at their own risk till the same are duly dispatched to the various customers. d. Respondent further conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both sides at length. The issue to be decided and to be adjudicated on the present application is whether there is a pre existence of disput e as between the parties even before issue of the Section 8 demand notice by the Petitioner, because the existence of such a dispute will make the present application non maintainable taking into consideration the scheme of the code and well laid down judicial precedents since coming into force of IBC,2016. 6. The Respondent it is seen had sent a letter dated 01.11.2012 to the Applicant stating that they have detected huge shortages on account of storage of stock at RWC, Hatia and to recover such huge losses they have also withheld payment of about 42 lakhs. As per tender clause VIII and c....