Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (9) TMI 1721

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, 2016 (I&B Code - in short) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Refex Energy Limited (Corporate Debtor). However, the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Chennai) by Impugned Order dated 31st October, 2018 rejected the Application under Section 9 on the ground that there is a dispute about quantum of debt. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that even if the debt is disputed, the amount being much more than Rs. 1 Lakh, it was incumbent on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to admit the Application in absence of any pre-existing dispute. 3. On the other hand, according to learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor, there is a dispute about quantum of pay....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls and finally saying that he is payable only Rs.75,97,141 does not amount to either crystallization of debt or confirmation of debt. Out of all this correspondence, two things emanate, one is, the Creditor failed to comply with the warranty clauses, two is, the debt has not been crystallized between the parties as on the date Section 8 Notice was served upon the Debtor because the Debtor in the year 2016 itself sent email that the balance payable is only Rs.75,97,141 and not the amount claimed by the Creditor as mentioned in the Company Petition. 13. Of course, as to limitation is concerned, there are continuous issues between the parties, whereby we refrain ourselves from deciding this point so that if parties go before civil cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts Date: 24 February 2016 at 10:43:30 PM IST To: Arun Mehta Cc: Anil Jain , Ashish Sethi , "Arun V. Jalan" , Rajesh Walia , Dinesh Agarwal Dear Arunji, As discussed with you last week in Delhi, we are not aware of the warranty failures and service issues being raised by you now as there is no communication from you in last few years. In fact I have personally sent many mails to you and Anilji in last few years for release of our outstanding payment and 'C' forms but you never reported any service issue or warranty issue to me. In fact I did not receive any response to any of mails. You will appreciate that we supported you to the best of our abilities. You are also aware of the fact that we have lost heavily on account of st....