AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench VI by which application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') has been rejected. 2. The Appellant had supplied goods to the Corporate Debtor. The present dispute is regarding only four invoices dated 09.01.2018, 16.04.2018, 24.05.2018 and 22.10.2018. According to the invoices the payment was to be made within 60 days after the delivery. After supply of the aforesaid goods when payment was not made, several reminders were sent by the Appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e adjudicating authority is to reject the application. It is submitted that for the first time after the issue of invoices email was sent by the Corporate Debtor on 20.05.2019, where the dispute of deficiency in quality of goods was raised prior to that there was several WhatsApp chat where the Respondent - Corporate Debtor has not raised any issue of deficiency in quality of goods and have not pointed out any such dispute in the communication. It was when through WhatsApp Chat the Appellant communicated that if payments are not received they are compelled to approach NCLT, as referred in WhatsApp Chat dated 17.03.2019, then on 20.05.2019 for the first time dispute was raised. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent refuted the submissions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 to 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." 6. The Adjudicating Authority has only to look into as to whether the dispute which is sought to be raised by the Corporate Debtor truly exists in fact and it is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory. On the material which has been brought on record we have only to find out as to whether there was any dispute actually in fact exists in between the parties prior to issuance of Section 8 notice or the dispute sought to be rais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ast. If I don't get payment within a week I am going to take legal action." 10. It was after the said communication, on 20.05.2019, following email was sent:- "Sir, As you are aware, we have been doing business with one another for the past many years and so far you have always supplied us with Flock Binder as required by us as per our standards and quality. In the recent time you have supplied us with Flock Binder and have raised a bill of Rs. 38 Lacs approx. (Oct 18 -Rs. 12.98 Lacs, Mary 2018-12.12 Lacs and April 2018-12.74 Lacs) against the goods supplied by you. Further you supplied us goods which was accepted by us, it was further agreed that payment will be made only when the goods are found to meet the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NDER for the 34th time have you actually voiced concerns regarding quality which is not only vague but completely unacceptable & simply unreasonable & it is nothing but trying to find a way to further delay & default on our payments. 7. Also, we would like to point out that we have What's app & SMS records from almost 2 years where you have promised us payments, which obviously have not come on time & the only thing we have received is different reasons or points to delay the said payment. Not even once in those conversations have you talked about inferior quality, or the above-mentioned claimed terms even once. So, it's evident that there were no such terms, nor any such quality issues & this mail has been written only when we sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Appellant sent various communications to the Corporate Debtor for payments and stated that it will be compelled to go to NCLT for his claim, after which the Respondent first time on 20.05.2019 informed that there is deficiency in the goods supplied. There has been no communication regarding quality of goods after delivery of goods by invoices dated 09.01.2018, 16.04.2018, 24.05.2018 and 22.10.2018 and after more than six months' period the Respondent sent communication regarding deficiency in quality of goods. The submission of counsel of the Respondent that they informed the Appellant on 20.05.2019 about bad quality of goods and asked to take away their goods, does not inspire any confidence. If there was any deficiency in the quality of....