2019] 219
PART
IV
Sl.
No.Particulars of Operational Debt
1 .Total
amount
of
debt,
details
of
trans
actions -
on
account
of
which
debt
fell
due,^
and
the
date
from
which
such
debt
fell^
due.
2 .Amount
claimed
to
be
in
default
and
the^
date
on
which
the
default
occurredTotal
amount
of
debt
claimed
to
be
in
default:^
Rs.
16 , 95 , 981 /-
plusinterest
Rs.^
3 , 20 , 940 /-
total
amounting
to
Rs.
20 , 16 , 921 /-.^
Date
from
which
such
debt
fell
due:
22 nd
March,^
2017The
Corporate
Debtor
has
filed
reply
and
admitted
of
supply
of
fabrics
by^
the
applicant
in
pursuance
of
purchase
orders
placed
by
the
Corporate
Debtor^
and
also
accepted
the
receiving
of
the
invoices.
The
Corporate
Debtor
has^
raised
following
objections
and
praying
for
dismissal
of
the
application.
A.
That
the
supply
of
grey
cloth
by
the
applicant
is
not
strictly
in
terms
of
order^
placed
and
there
is
issue
with
respect
to
quality/quantity
and
time
schedule^
of
supply.
B.
That
the
authorized
representative
of
the
company
filing
this
application
has^
not
placed
appropriate
proof
of
authorization.
C.
That
the
Corporate
Debtor
was
not
supplied
the
copy
of
Form- 2
being
consent^
of
IRP.
D.
The
statement
of
bank
account
of
Operational
Creditor
as
annexed
in
the^
application
is
incomplete
not
covering
payment
made
after
service
of^
demand
notice.
E.
The
application
is
not
supported
by
certificate
to
be
issued
by
the
bank
and^
compliance
of
Section
9 ( 3 )(
c)
is
incomplete.
F.
That
the
affidavit
filed
by
the
applicant
in
compliance
of
provisions
of
Section^
9 ( 3 )(
b)
is
incorrect
which
has
also
been
recorded
in
order
of
the
Bench^
on
05. 10. 2018.
G.
That
the
demand
notice
issued
on
06. 04. 2018
reflects
the
amounts
of
claim^
after
which
the
payments
were
made
by
the
Corporate
Debtor
which^
was
acknowledged
by
the
applicant
hence,
a
fresh
demand
notice
should^
have
been
issued
for
the
balance
amount
of
claim
which
has
not
been^
done.
H.
The
claim
raised
in
demand
notice
and
claim
in
the
application
are
not
in^
conformity.
I.
The
ledger
account
statement
annexed
by
the
applicant
is
not
confirmed
by^
the
Corporate
Debtor
and
further
it
reflects
TIN
whereas
on
that
date
already^
GSTIN
were
allotted.Avon Clothing (P.) Ltd.
v.
Siddarth Intercrafts (P.) Ltd. (NCLT - Jaipur)