TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Ltd., under Section 9 of IBC 2016 for the alleged default on the part of the Corporate Debtor having an outstanding balance of Rs. 13,84,254/- during the course of performance of two contracts for solar rooftop power projects entered by it with the corporate debtor. The details of transactions leading to the filing of this petition as averred by the applicant are as follows:- a. A Work Order/Purchase Orders for 423 kWp -Pioneers Spinners Kamuthakudi Project ("Project 1") and Work Orders/Purchase Orders for 357 kWp -Kaleeswarar Mills Project ("Project 2') entered into by it with the Corporate Debtor on 20.05.2016. b. Further it is stated that operational creditor was granted Letter of Allocation ("LOA") by the Solar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conditions contained POs/WOs, amount of Rs. 2,21,33,898/- towards Project 1 and Rs. 1,86,80,382/- towards Project 2 become due from corporate debtor upon the completion of work on 25.12.2016 and 21.04.2017, respectively. e. Further it is submitted that corporate debtor failed to release the complete payment due to HSEPL and retained an amount of Rs. 13,84,254/- against the terms of the POs/WOs and Agreement.. f. Furthermore, the unpaid debts are 7,32,120.60 and Rs. 6,52,134.40, respectively, for Project 1 and Project 2, i.e. a total of Rs. 13,84,254/- out of which Rs. 2,07,954 is towards C Form and ST difference. Importantly, SECI vide its mail dated 12.05.2017 also clarified to corporate debtor that there was no clause/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... departmental communication dated 16.12.2019 in showing calculations of losses suffered by the respondent. 3. In this regard, the applicant has denied the allegations made in the reply of the corporate debtor and further submitted in rejoinder that: a. The applicant claimed that no notice of dispute was ever given by the corporate debtor to applicant. Infact, the applicant vide letters dated 17.12.2018, 20.02.2019, 03.04.2019, 17.04.2019, 31.07.2019 and in it Demand Notice dated 23.10.2019, has demanded its pending dues and the corporate debtor has never raised any dispute over the delay in execution of the contract. b. The applicant further states that the respondent has relied upon the correspondences related to the y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the instant projects is primarily for the Corporate Debtor's captive consumption only, it cannot be said that the Corporate Debtor suffered any revenue loss on account of any purported delay by the Applicant. The applicant further pointed out that the entire scheme of the project does not envisage the corporate debtor earning any revenue from power generated from the projects, therefore no loss can. because to the corporate debtor. 4. The corporate debtor has filed its written submissions and reiterated its submissions as filed in the reply. 5. Heard the parties and perused the case records. Considering the documents on record admittedly the respondent has never raise any dispute over quantum of claim or delay of applicant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the matter of "Mobilox Innovative Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited. 8. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, it can be concluded that the applicant has established its claim which is due and payable by the corporate debtor and the corporate debtor has failed to prove existence of any preexisting dispute in respect of amount claimed by applicant. The present application is admitted. 9. The applicant has not proposed the name of IRP, therefore, this bench appoints Mr. Amit Talwar as the Insolvency Resolution Professional of the corporate debtor. The registration number of the IRP being IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N01178/2020-21/13887 and email id. [email protected]. IRP above named is appointed subject to the ....