TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....953 with its registered office and factory situated at No. 127, 2nd Floor, Anchorage Court, Brigade Road, Bengaluru-560025. Hence, the jurisdiction lies with this Adjudicating Authority. The Authorised Share Capital of the Respondent Company is Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Only) and its Paid-up Share Capital is Rs. 1,66,24,400/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Six Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Only). 3. The Operational Creditor is represented by its Legal Executive Mr. N. Aravindhraj. The Operational Creditor is registered with the Registrar of Companies vide CIN: L74900TN2004PLC053467 with its registered office at 4th Floor, SPIC House, No. 88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032. The Operational Creditor states that they have established a Manufacturing Unit (Industrial Packaging Division) (formerly Beta Industries a division of Silage India Ltd., factory at No. 650, Ponneri High Road, Chennai-600120, with an installed capacity of manufacturing 167000 drums per annum. 4. During the course of business, the Corporate Debtor approached to purchase up to 20,000 Nos. of open Top Type MS Drums with GI Lever Type Lock Ring Top and Bottom made out of 1.00 mm thickness CRC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 04.11.2019 under Rule 5 to the Corporate Debtor. Upon receipt of the said notices, the Corporate Debtor sent a mail dated 26.12.2019 referring the earlier proposal for one time settlement and agreed to execute a settlement deed. When the draft settlement deed was sent to the Corporate Debtor, it was confirmed by them for execution, however it was neither executed nor settled the dues. Even after the expiry of 10 days from the date of receipt of statutory Demand Notice, the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment and no notice of dispute has been received by Operational Creditor. As per the Demand Notice issued u/s. 8 of the Code, the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay a Principal amount of Rs. 46,83,408/- (90 days credit period was granted to the Debtor) and an interest amount of Rs. 91,35,656/- (from original due date as on 09.10.2011), totalling to Rs. 1,38,19,064/-. Hence, this Application. 8. The Respondent, while opposing the Company Petition, has filed its statement of objections dated 03.02.2021, by inter alia contending as under: (a) There are two separate entities which were doing business transactions with M/s. Beta Industries, viz., M/s. Tasa Foods Private....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f goods were made on account, as opposed to payments being made against any specific or individual invoice. The complete payment for the supply of said 10,401 drums was completed way back in 2014 itself and thus the transaction as between the parties has come to an end, with all outstanding payments having been made and accepted by both the parties. Thus, there exists no operational debt, as the last payment which settled the account for the transaction under dispute was completed on 25.08.2014. 9. The Petitioner vide its rejoinder dated 28.02.2021 has inter alia stated that the Applicant supplied goods to RMM Food Products & Respondent during the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 with separate invoices and payments were made by both RMM Food Products and Respondent. The Respondent did not issue any invoice number details of their payments made to the Applicant and hence it adopted First-in First-out Method and accounted the receipt of payment from the Respondent and its Group. Payments were made by RMM Food Products and Respondent to the Applicant interchangeably for their dues. Even in the bank statement filed by the Respondent, payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- dated 24.03.2011 are dues of RM....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 90,00,000/- was made on 24.03.2011 and the last payment was made on 25.08.2014. Therefore, the Respondent has cleared all its dues towards the Applicant and that the Applicant has manipulatively merged/combined the transactions between itself and two separate entities i.e., Tasa Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent herein) and RMM Food Products. It was only vide its Rejoinder, that the Applicant revealed the fact that it had business transactions with two separate entities. The Respondent submits that these two entities are separate legal entities and are in no way related to one another. 12. The Respondent further contended that both Tasa Foods and RMM Food Products purchased products from the Applicant via separate purchase orders, separate invoices and also made payments to the Applicant from their respective bank accounts, standing in their respective names. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate the interconnectedness of the two entities in any way. Whenever a payment was made by Tasa Foods, from its bank accounts and under its name, in the absence of any explicit and specific instructions to the contrary, the Applicant could not have made any such appropriation of payments, as c....