TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ules, 2016. 2. The present petition is filed before this Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 1,17,65,049/- (Rupees One Crore Seventeen lakhs Sixty Five Thousand and Forty Nine Only) plus interest @ 24% p.a. 3. Facts :- a. The Operational Creditor had sold, supplied and delivered printing inks of various descriptions (Goods) to the Corporate Debtor. The Outstanding pending sales amounted to Rs. 1,07,87,937/- (Rupees One Crore Seven Lakh Eighty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-Seven Only). The overdue interest amounted to Rs. 9,67,723/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Sixty- Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-Three Only). The pending Sales Tax Forms "C" Liability of Rs. 9,389/- (Rupees nine Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty-Nine Only). b. Operational Creditor's said claim is based on the invoices raised on the Corporate Debtor. The amount mentioned in the invoices fell due on different dates. The Particulars of Debt along with the date of each invoices amounts thereunder and their respective due date is enumerated as under:- Invoice/Credit no. Invoice Date Invoice Amount Due Date 600....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... working days of delivery of goods. d. The Operational Creditor sent Demand Notice under Form 3 dated 08.02.2018 to the Corporate Debtor thereby demanding the amount. The said Demand Notice was delivered to and received by the Corporate Debtor via Speed Post on 19.02.2018. Corporate Debtor issued a response to the said Demand Notice dated 22.02.2018 i.e. after the expiry of the ten days period as stipulated under section 8 (2) of "the Code". e. The Corporate Debtor in its reply to the Demand Notice, denied any liability to pay to the Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor stated that two years ago, Corporate Debtor had claimed amount from the Operational Creditor towards rate difference and quality problem and the same was accepted by concerned sales person of the Operational Creditor who also assured to give discount to the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor stated that, yet they had not received any credit discount. The Corporate Debtor alleged an amount of Rs. 1.30 crores of which no calculation has been given by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor also threatened to initiate Civil, Criminal, Suit for recovery, Insolvency Proceedings against the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent petition is not maintainable as the Operational Creditor had received 'notice of dispute' from the Corporate Debtor and the petition needs to be rejected. The Corporate Debtor stated that the reply cum notice of dispute dated 22.02.2018 reveal that the Corporate Debtor has brought to the notice of the Operational Creditor the existence of dispute since more than last two years. The said dispute was related to quality and rate difference which was accepted by the sales person of the Operational Creditor who had also assured to give discount. j. The Corporate Debtor states that the Operational Creditor vide its letter dated 12.03.2018 has admitted that the Corporate Debtor had raised its concern with the Operational Creditor regarding the rate difference. This itself epitomize about the existing dispute between the parties. The part of the letter sent by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor sets out as under: - " In the past, you have only once raised concern over the rates and requested for the rate difference credit note and the same was out rightly rejected mentioning that we are always supplying high quality products at a competitive price and af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of a dispute, if any and record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings, the result is disputes, if any, applies to all kinds of disputes in relation to debt and default. m. Further, the Corporate Debtor has also cited the Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of the term dispute under the Code and observed to include dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor prior to the issue of Demand Notice, even though no suit or arbitration is pending in respect of such dispute. The Corporate Debtor quotes the following para 45 of the Judgement.... "45. Going by the aforesaid test of "existence of a dispute", it is clear that without going into the merits of the dispute, the appellant has raised a plausible contention requiring further investigation which is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of facts unsupported by evidence. The defense is not spurious, mere bluster, plainly frivolous or vexatious. A dispute does truly exist in fact between the parties, which may or may not ultimately ....