220 SEBI & Corporate Laws - Reports [Vol. 154
J.
That
the
authorized
representative
of
the
applicant
had
visited
unit
of
Corporate^
Debtor
when
the
defects
in
the
goods
were
informed
to
him
and^
return
of
such
supply
was
informed
to
the
said
representative.
K.
That
the
debit
notes
were
being
issued
by
the
Corporate
Debtor
and
in
formed -
to
the
representative
of
the
applicant
time
and
again,
the
details
of^
invoices
and
corresponding
debit
notes
are
annexed
at
Annexure
R- 2.
L.
That
the
Corporate
Debtor
and
applicant
had
a
meeting
in
August,
2018
after^
receiving
notice
under
section
8
and
as
per
mutual
settlement,
after
resolving^
discrepancies/deficiencies
with
regard
to
quality/quantity
and
time^
schedule
of
supply
of
goods,
the
payments
were
released
by
the
Corporate^
Debtor.
The
amount
payable
by
the
Corporate
Debtor
to
the
applicant^
of
Rs.
3 , 58 , 031 /-
was
paid
and
hence
now
nothing
is
payable.
M.
The
applicant
has
made
directors
of
the
Corporate
Debtor
as
parties
and
after^
filing
application
has
filed
revised
memo
of
parties.
The
applicant
has
filed
rejoinder
controverting
statements
made
in
the
reply
and^
reiterated
the
contentions
of
the
application.
The
applicant
submits
that
the^
technical
objections
raised
by
the
Corporate
Debtor
with
respect
to
the
application^
being
complete
are
met
with
and
wherever
required
after
taking
permission^
from
the
Bench
they
have
filed
the
amended/corrected
documents
accordingly,^
the
technical
objections
raised
by
the
corporate
debtor
met
by
the^
applicant
are
as
follows:
—
(
i)
The
objections
with
respect
GSTIN
number
of
the
Corporate
Debtor
are
from^
the
date
of
GST
coming
into
action
but
in
the
reply
the
Corporate
Debtor^
which
gives
the
statement
financial
order-wise
and
the
debit
notes
raised^
by
the
Corporate
Debtor
stating
to
be
of
the
dispute
are
of
back
date^
clearly
manifesting
the
mala fideintention
of
Corporate
Debtor
to
escape^
the
liability
raised
in
this
application.
(
ii)
The
Board
Resolution
authorizing
Mr.
Mahesh
Kumar
Kandoi
to
file
application^
dated
04. 04. 2018
is
annexed
to
the
application.
(
iii)
The
debit
notes
as
alleged
to
have
been
raised
by
the
Corporate
Debtor
were^
never
received
by
the
applicant
and
the
copies
annexed
does
not
have^
any
acknowledgement
by
the
applicant.
Debit
note
are
created
and
fabricated^
as
an
afterthought
to
save
the
Corporate
Debtor
from
these
proceedings.^
(
iv)
The
revised
affidavit
in
compliance
of
Section
9 ( 3 )(
b)
has
been
submit
ted -
in
compliance
of
the
order
passed
by
this
Adjudicating
Authority
on
02. 08. 2018.^
(
v)
The
objection
with
respect
non-compliance
of
Section
9 ( 3 )(
c)
is
met
by
quoting^
the
judgment
passed
by
the
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
in
Maequa-
rie Bank Ltd.
v.
Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd.
[ 2017 ]
88
taxmann.com
180 /[ 2018 ]^
145
SCL
236
holding
that
the
compliance
of
Section
9 ( 3 )(
c)
in^
relation
to
Operational
Debt
is
not
mandatory.