TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Medinnebelle Herbalcare Private Limited (hereinafter, Respondent/Corporate Debtor). 2. As per averments made in the petition, that the applicant was proprietor of the registered trade mark "NPD ENDURA MASS". The said trademark was assigned to the respondent vide assignment deed dated 19.01.2018 for a consideration of Rs. 4,44,00,000/- excluding GST. It is stated that the respondent paid Rs. 3,96,00,000/- vide two demand drafts bearing No. 503542 and 503543 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. after deducting Rs. 44,00,000/- amount for TDS. It is stated that the respondent did not pay the GST amount 52,80,000/-. 3. It is submitted that the respondent in order to di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is submitted that the GST was included in the main amount of consideration and if not then it is a disputed question, which should be adjudicated by a competent authority. It has been pointed out that page 40 of the assignment deed provided that "Received on 9th January 2018 from Medinn Bellee Herbal Care Pvt. Ltd., a gross consideration amount of Indian Rs. 4,40,00,000/- .....", and the word "Gross Consideration" means GST is included in the amount. iii. It is also claimed that the entire transaction has now became null and void due to various criminal acts including fraud and cheating by applicant and criminal proceedings are pending. It is also claimed that applicant is liable to return full consideration and atleast not enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne defense and there is no dispute pending between the parties. It is submitted that the corporate debtor itself has paid Rs. 1,70,00,000/- to Mr. K.N. Prasad and on the other hand the corporate debtor is claiming that Mr. K.N. Prasad had conspired with applicant to commit fraud with corporate debtor. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the corporate debtor has filed some additional document on record such as letter dated 12.03.2018 in order to show disagreement between the parties regarding payment of GST. It is pertinent to mention here that the corporate debtor in its letter dated 12.03.2018 itself has acknowledged the issuance of cheque for Rs. 52,80,000/- in respect of payment of GST amount. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsel for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application." (emphasis given). 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, since the corporate debtor already-issued a cheque in order to clear its liability towards payment of GST, the claim of applicant deserves to be allowed. 13. The applicant has not proposed the name of an IRP, therefore, this bench appoints Mr. Santanu Kumar Samanta, as ....