2022 (12) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Hyderabad), while passing the 'impugned order' dated 30.06.2022, in CP(IB) No.320/9/HDB/2021 (filed by the '1st Respondent' / 'Petitioner' / 'Operational Creditor') at 'Paragraph Nos.6 to 10', had observed the following :- 6. "The ledger account of the Corporate Debtor, in the books of account of the Operational Creditor, pertaining to a period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020, exhibits an amount of Rs.2,36,39,065/- as being due to the Operational Creditor, from the Corporate Debtor. Further, the payment of Rs.50,00,000/- that the Corporate Debtor claims to have made, is recorded in the said ledger account. 7. The Corporate Debtor claims that the Petitioner has raised fictitious invoices, without supplying the goods, as mentioned therein. However, the numbered and dated invoices that have been listed out by the Corporate Debtor tally with those filed by the Petitioner, and are identical. Further, even assuming that the said invoices are fictitious, the Corporate Debtor has not stated the details of the purported invoices under which supply has been made and payment effected, as is claimed by it. 8. Secondly, the Corporate Debtor, in its reply to the statut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Case'. 5. According to the Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant', that the 'Corporate Debtor', had not 'acknowledged', the copies of 'Bills', submitted by the '1st Respondent' / 'Petitioner' / 'Operational Creditor' and the 'Delivery Challans' or any 'Acknowledgment' about the 'Delivery of the Goods', covered under the purported 'Bills'. 6. It is represented on behalf of the 'Appellant' that the 'Corporate Debtor' had acknowledged the 'amounts', claimed by the '1st Respondent' / 'Petitioner' / 'Operational Creditor' and the 'amounts' claimed is not 'entitled' to 'recover' by the '1st Respondent' / 'Petitioner' / 'Operational Creditor'. Added further, the 'Balance Sheet', etc., projected before the 'Adjudicating Authority', (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) were not 'acknowledged' by the 'Corporate Debtor'. 7. In this connection, this 'Tribunal', relevantly points out that according to the '1st Respondent' / 'Petitioner' / 'Operational Creditor', it is a 'Partnership Firm', engaged in the business of 'printing boxes', 'lamination boxes', packaging material' and other 'allied activities', having its 'Registered Office at 70-71, Hootagally Industrial ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xes and the 'Corporate Debtor' had not placed all the 'purchase orders', for supply of 'materials' to be supplied with the 'invoices' to the 'Corporate Debtor'. 12. The 'defence' projected before the 'Adjudicating Authority', (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) on behalf of the 'Corporate Debtor' is that the 1st Respondent' / 'Petitioner' / 'Operational Creditor' is claiming 'huge sum', without supply of 'Goods' and raised the 'amount', with 'Fictitious Invoices' and further, that the '1st Respondent' / 'Petitioner' / 'Operational Creditor', without supplying the 'Goods' had raised the 'invoices' only to bring the 'Company' into an 'insolvency'. 13. In regard to the 'Plea' of the 'poor quality of paper', the 'Corporate Debtor' had taken a stand, before the 'Adjudicating Authority', (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) that in the 'subject matter' in issue, there was a 'pre-existing dispute', in regard to the 'quantity and quality' of the goods supplied and that the time line, which are delivered to the 'Corporate Debtor' are not useful for 'accepted parties' and the time of the 'Corporate Debtor' was wasted, since the Goods sent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent' / 'Petitioner' / 'Operational Creditor' from the 'Corporate Debtor', although Rs.50,00,000/- was said to have been paid by the 'Corporate Debtor', the same was mentioned in the 'Ledger Account' of the Corporate Debtor. 20. A 'Corporate Debtor', in 'Law' is entitled to take all 'available 'Defences' and the 'Dispute', purportedly raised by the 'Corporate Debtor' is not to be a 'weak one' or 'near assertion of fact' and that too 'unsupported' with any 'satisfactory material'. 21. The very fact that a 'criminal complaint' before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court No.V, Mysuru, is filed by the '1st Respondent' / 'Petitioner' / 'Operational Creditor' against the 'Corporate Debtor', that itself, will clearly, unerringly points out to the 'Admission of Debt', and that will not point out an 'existence of dispute', as held by this 'Tribunal's Judgment', in 'Sudhi Sachdev v. Appl Industries' (Comp. Appl. (AT) (Ins) No.623/2018, which has been rightly 'quoted' by the 'Adjudicating Authority', (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) in 'Paragraph 10' of the 'impugned order'. 22. As regards the 'quality of materials', that was 'supplied' a....