2019] 217
raised
objections
that
the
supply
of
grey
cloth
by
the
operational
creditor
was^
not
strictly
in
terms
of
order
placed
and
there
was
issue
with
respect
to^
quality/quantity
and
time
schedule
of
supply;
the
authorized
represen
tative -
of
the
company
filing
instant
application
had
not
placed
appropriate
proof^
of
authorization;
that
the
statement
of
bank
account
of
operational
creditor^
as
annexed
in
the
application
was
incomplete
not
covering
payment
made^
after
service
of
demand
notice;
the
application
was
not
supported
by
certificate^
to
be
issued
by
the
bank
and
compliance
of
section
9 ( 3 )(
c
)
was
incomplete.^HELD
n
The
corporate
debtor
admitted
the
goods
supplied,
invoices
raised
and
same
being^
received
by
it.
The
corporate
debtor
has
nowhere
stated
or
objected/
disputed
the
invoices
or
its
contents
prior
to
section
8
notice
received.
Post-
receiving^
the
notice
under
section
8
from
applicant
the
corporate
debtor
has^
made
part
payment
without
raising
notice
of
dispute
to
the
operational
creditor.^
There
is
no
correspondence
placed
on
record
by
corporate
debtor
prior^
to
issuance
of
demand
notice
to
establish
pre-existing
dispute,
on
the
contrary^
there
is
one
settlement
referred
to
between
the
parties
of
which
again^
no
document
is
on
record.
The
objections
are
all
after
receiving
demand^
notice
and
no
concrete
proof
shown
of
debit
notes
as
raised
by
corporate^
debtor
being
sent
and
received
by
applicant.
The
defence
raised
of^
dispute
is
lame
and
without
any
supporting
evidence
can
be
categorised
as^
moonshine
dispute.
[Para
11 ]n
Further,
the
registered
office
of
corporate
debtor
is
situated
in
Jaipur
and
therefore^
this
Tribunal
has
jurisdiction
to
entertain
and
try
this
application.
[Para^
15 ]n
The
default
occurred
from
22 - 3 - 2017 ,
from
the
date
of
issue
of
loan
recalling
notice^
and
demanding
payment
of
debt
hence
the
debt
is
not
time
barred
and^
the
application
is
filed
within
the
period
of
limitation.
[Para
16 ]n
In
the
given
facts
and
circumstances,
the
present
application
is
complete
and^
the
applicant
is
entitled
to
claim
its
dues,
establishing
the
default
in
payment^
of
the
operational
debt
beyond
doubt.
In
the
light
of
the
above
facts^
and
records
the
instant
application
deserves
to
be
admitted.
[Para
17 ]CASES REFERRED TO
Maequarie Bank Ltd
.
v.
Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd.
[ 2017 ]
88
taxmann.com
180 /
[ 2018 ]
145
SCL
236
(SC)
(para
8 ),
Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd.
v.
Kirusa Software (P.)
Ltd
.
[ 2017 ]
85
taxmann.com
292 / 144
SCL
37
(SC)
(para
12 ),
In^ Prabhat Marketing Co. Ltd.,
re
[ 2015 ]
57
taxmann.com
158
(Raj.)
(para
13 )
and
Topsgroup Services Ltd.
v.
BLS
IT-Services (P.) Ltd.
[ 2018 ]
94
taxmann.com
305
(NCLT- New
Delhi)
(para
14 ).
Prashant Agrawal
and
Prashant Sharma for the Applicant. Naresh Kumar
Sejvani for the Respondent.
Avon Clothing (P.) Ltd.
v.
Siddarth Intercrafts (P.) Ltd. (NCLT - Jaipur)