TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... U.K. As per the agreement, Operational Creditor will provide sim cards to the Corporate Debtor which it could resell to its customers in India which was to be used by them in U.K. 3. The said Reseller Agreement was valid for a period of 24 months, wherein certain commitment as regard to the volume as well as number of connections had also been made. The parties were also agreed for prices to be charged from customers and sharing of revenue between them. The services were provided between 23.03.2015 to 15.10.2017 for which operational creditor raised several invoices. It is also noted that bills/invoices raised against the services were to be cleared as soon as they were raised. The corporate debtor has made part payments against the outstanding invoices. Further, the operational creditor has also issued credit notes and waived of certain amounts raised in invoices. However, the outstanding amount has remained pending. Contentions raised by the operational creditor 4. The Ld. Counsel, after narrating these basic facts submitted that in the present case undisputed liability was more than the threshold limit, hence, without going into other facts and contentions, merely on this ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lier than the period of March 2018, however notwithstanding the fact that lines could not be used till September 2015 due to unprofessional behaviour and laxity and other defaults at the end of operational creditor. 12. It is submitted that in terms of Clause 20 of the Agreement, the contract can be terminated only by giving 30 days notice. However, Operational Creditor disconnected the lines of the Sim Cards in January 2017 without affording 30 days notice in terms of Agreement. Therefore, the operational creditor breached the Agreement with impunity and is not entitled to claim any benefit or amount under the Agreement. That there was no intimation from the operational creditor before disconnecting the lines which caused huge loss and damage to the business of the corporate debtor. As promised by the operational creditor to come back in January 2017, the operational creditor never came back to solve the ongoing issues and the disputes persisted between the parties. 13. That the operational creditor has time and again made baseless demands to reinstate network lines. That corporate debtor has continuously apprised the Operational Creditor about all the pending disputes between b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....creditor has provided mobile telecom services to the customers of corporate debtor while such customers travel in U.K. For this purpose, operational creditor provided mobile sim cards to the corporate debtor which the corporate debtor sold to its customers in India. It is also noted that certain financial targets were to be achieved over a two-year period of the contract. 21. This application complies with the basic requirements of Section 8/9 of IBC, 2016 and rules and regulations made thereunder. The crux of the matter is that whether there exists a dispute between the parties prior to delivery of notice of demand U/s. 8 of IBC. If it is so, the other question which arises for our consideration is whether undisputed amount of outstanding liability is more than the threshold limit as prescribed U/s. 4 of IBC, 2016. As far as first aspect is concerned, there have been a number of communications between the operational creditor and corporate debtor which make it apparent that there are certain strong differences between the two. Thus, it becomes imperative for us to find out what is the undisputed amount of liability. 22. To find an answer to the above query, we have carefully gon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decisions rendered by the Hon'ble NCLAT that in case of dispute, if the undisputed liability is more than the threshold limit, the application could be admitted. 26. Accordingly, we admit this application and order as under. 27. The applicant has not proposed the name of the Insolvency Resolution Professional. Accordingly, this Tribunal, hereby, appoints Insolvency Professional namely, Mr. Nitish Kumar Chugh having Registration Number IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P01636/2019-20/12529 (Email ID- [email protected]) as Interim Resolution Professional from the list provided by IBBI. The IRP is directed to take charge of the respondent corporate debtor's management immediately. He is also directed to cause public announcement as prescribed under section 15 of the IBC, 2016, within three days from the date of this order received, and call for submissions of claim in the manner as prescribed. 28. The moratorium is declared which shall have effect from this Order till the completion of CIRP, for the purposes referred to in section 14 of the IBC, 2016. It is ordered to prohibit all of the following, namely:- a. The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings again....