AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('the Code') read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by Mr. Basanta Kumar Baral, Partner, Talbot & Company ('Operational Creditor'), duly authorised vide resolution dated 15 July, 2019 Annexure - C, at page 17 of the Petition for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') against Austin Distributers Private Limited ('Corporate Debtor'). 3. The present Petition was filed on 25 October, 2019 before this Adjudicating Authority. The total amount claimed in default is Rs.8,17,678.54/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight and Fifty Four Paisa only) and interest of Rs.1,46,052/- (Rupees One Lak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Corporate Debtor at various showrooms and thereafter, for such deployment, the Operational Creditor would raise invoices on monthly basis. The said services were duly accepted by the Corporate Debtor without raising any objection. 5.5 The Corporate Debtor made payments against some of the invoices raised by the Operational Creditor prior to 01 August, 2017 and thereafter, made payments towards certain bills. The Corporate Debtor requested the Operational Creditor to continue to provide the services and assured that the payments pertaining to the outstanding bills would be made shortly. Despite, several requests, the Corporate Debtor failed to make payments of the invoices raised by the Operational Creditor. 5.6 The Operational Cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orate Debtor. 5.9 The Corporate Debtor replied to the said demand notice by a letter dated 06 August, 2019. The Corporate Debtor made baseless and frivolous allegations against the Operational Creditor to evade from paying the admitted dues. The contents of the said reply are all false and baseless and are denied and disputed. The Corporate Debtor, in order to avoid making payments of the admitted dues replied to the said demand notice by falsely accusing the Operational Creditor. 5.10 There are no pre-existing disputes before receipt of the Form - 3 dated 26 July, 2019. Furthermore, had there been any pre-existing disputes, the same has been waived after issuing the letter dated May 21, 2019, wherein the Corporate Debtor not only adm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Corporate Debtor received the said statutory demand notice on 31 July, 2019. 6.6 The fact that such willfully deficient services was rendered by the Operational Creditor had been communicated by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor multiple times verbally and also via e-mail on February 26, 2016, November 10, 2017, October 2, 2018 (12:48 PM), March 12, 2019, March 14, 2019, but no compensatory action was never taken by the Operational Creditor [Annexure - A of the Reply]. 6.7 The services provided by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor violated the terms and conditions of the said contracts of service as well as the general industry standards of care and diligence expected from a provider of such services on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnexure A hereto will shows that there exists multiple pre-existing disputes between the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor pertaining to the contracted services that had been raised by the Corporate Debtor and duly and diligently communicated to the Operational Creditor. These pre-existing disputes go to the root of the matter under adjudication in the instant Application but the Operational Creditor chose to ignore the same before concocting the untenable, illegal demand against the Corporate Debtor in the said statutory demand notice and frivolously filed the instant Application 6.12 The corporate debtor states and submits that the proceedings under IBC, 2016, are summary in nature and it is now a settled proposition of law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t may, it is imperative to mention that from the year 2016 to 2019 the Corporate Debtor raised several issued with respect to the services provided by the Operational Creditor. Further, the email dated 21 May, 2019 is very unconventional because it is the same Corporate Debtor who has been disputing the services rendered by the Operational Creditor. 12. With respect to the pre-existing dispute, we also rely on Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Anr., (2018) 1 SCC 407 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court while explaining the provisions of Sections 7 or 9 observed and held: "29. The scheme of Section 7 stands in contrast with the scheme under Section 8 where an operational creditor is, on the occurrence of a default, to firs....