TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepesh, Ms. Niharika Khanna, Advocates for R-2 JUDGMENT ( Hybrid Mode ) [ Per : Arun Baroka , Member ( Technical ) ] The present appeal is filed under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "IBC") by Mrs. Alpa Rajeev Shah, Suspended Designated Partner of M/s Kevin Ventures LLP, the Corporate Debtor - CD, against the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Mumbai [Adjudicating Authority] in Company Petition (IB) No. 386/MB/2022 under Section 9 on the petition of M/s PMC YM-Pharma Private Limited the Operational Creditor and Respondent No.2 in this CIRP in this Appeal. 2. Counsels for both parties were heard and the records ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A total outstanding of Rs.3,84,61,125/- is payable to the Operational Creditor by the Corporate Debtor. On 20/01/2021, the Operational Creditor also issued a demand notice under IBC provisions demanding to pay the outstanding amount with up-to-date interest. The Corporate Debtor acknowledged the notice but neither paid the outstanding amount nor raised any pre-existing dispute. The Corporate Debtor also confirmed the outstanding debt of Rs.2,73,09,675/- as well as the statement of account as at 31.05.2018 and 15.10.2019, sent by the Operational Creditor vide e-mails dated 09.06.2018 and 15.10.2019. In these circumstances, Operational Creditor had submitted that the Corporate Debtor was liable to pay a total sum of Rs.3,84,61,125/-, which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t No. 2 or collected any material on behalf of Respondent No.1 against the said notices and delivery challans of Respondent No. 2. 6. The Appellant has also submitted that the screen shots of GST which are produced by the Operational Creditor can be tampered by reversal or could be changed by Respondent No.2 any time after issuance. Appellant further claims that the documents submitted by Operational Creditor pertaining to the invoices, e-way bills, delivery challans and lorry receipts are self-contradictory and in some cases the vehicle numbers were also found to be fictitious. 7. Appellant's case is mainly hinging around the fact that adjudicating Authority has not considered the disputes raised by Respondent No.1. Further it claims tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date of confirmation of accounts by the CD is 15.10. 2019 and this is part of record and therefore within limitation period and is not time barred. 9. Furthermore, claims of the Appellant that the OC who has filed the Company Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") under oath, that he was personally aware of the facts of the matter, had joined the Company as a Director on 24.06.2019 i.e. more than 16 months after the alleged purchase order and tax invoices. This is a specious argument as he is a authorised representative and the grounds are not supporting the Appeal. 10. The Adjudicating Authority has also gone into the submission of the Corporate Debtor on the letter obtained from M/s Dhanlaxmi W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he complaints over telephone as well as in person and basis that claims existence of pre-existing dispute. But no documentary evidence has been produced with respect to that so that we cannot accept it as an argument. On the other hand, the statement of account has been authenticated by its representative without any demur, which proves the debt. 13. The Adjudicating Authority has also found contradictions in the statements of the Corporate Debtor. Corporate Debtor denies that confirmation of accounts by Mr. Rajeev Shah and submits that this is not the signatures of any designated partners of the Corporate Debtor or the authorised signatory of the Corporate Debtor. Adjudicating Authority notes that the additional affidavit filed by the Cor....