2022 (3) TMI 1059

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of respondent company, claimed to be the corporate debtor. 2. The applicant, AYU Infrastructure Private Limited has filed the present application claiming as the operational creditor with the prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the provisions of the Code. 3. The details of transactions leading to the filing of this petition as averred by the petitioner are as follows: a. The Operational creditor is engaged in the business of providing construction and allied activities on order with respect to projects. b. The Operational Creditor before filing the said petition had filled IB-1212(ND)/2019 earlier but vide order dated 21.05.2019 wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ork being carried out by the Applicant was not as per the satisfaction of the Corporate Debtor. However, in good faith and to maintain cordial relations payments were made to the Applicant as per demands and understanding between the Parties and as per the work being carried out at the site in question. d. Applicant had raised the invoice dated 20.03.2017 for the entire sum of Rs. 20,16,633/- for the complete work, however, the Corporate Debtor made the part payment as per the work being carried out at site till 20.03.2017. e. The Corporate Debtor further submitted through his reply that they had paid total sum of Rs. 18,55,065/- to the Applicant. Further, Corporate Debtor alleged that they had cancelled the work awarded t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ebtor had engaged a third party to complete the remaining work at the project site. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Mobilox Innovative Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited" in civil appeal number 9405 of 2017 ([2017] ibciaw.in 01 SC) vide order dated 21.09.2017 has held that: "Therefore, all the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the court does not need to be satisfied....