IN RE Vs. SATYANARAYAN SHYAMSUNDER (HUF)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC in short) read with Rule 6 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (application to Adjudicating Authority Rules 2016) by the operational creditor/petitioner M/s. Satyanarayan Shyamsundar (HUF) for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process as against the corporate debtor/respondent Balaji Paper & Newsprint Private Limited.

(2.) Briefly the facts emerged from the petition are that the applicant is a dealer in sale of waste paper. The petitioner supplied and delivered waste paper to the respondent as per requirement placed by the respondent from time to time and invoices were generated for payment for the goods supplied to the respondent. The petitioner contends that an amount of Rs.33,08,419/- (Rupees Thirty Thee Lakh Eight Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen only) along with interest is due from the respondent and in spite of demand, the respondent did not repay the amount and thereby issued a demand notice under Form 3 of IBC on 11.08.2017 to the respondent demanding the alleged outstanding payment. The petitioner further contends that the demand notice was delivered to the respondent and respondent in turn sent a reply on 21.08.2017 contending untenable contentions. The respondent raised disputes to avoid payment of the legitimate dues of the petitioner. The petitioner approached this adjudicating authority with clean hands with supporting documents proving that the debt to the tune of Rs. 33,08,419/- is due from the respondent and since the respondent failed to repay the amount, the petition is liable to be admitted under Section 9 of IBC 2016.

(3.) The Corporate Debtor / respondent objected this application mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it contends that the respondent is not a corporate debtor because no amount is due to the petitioner. Secondly, it contends that the goods supplied was damaged and was unable to utilize for the purpose of the respondent's business and a dispute regarding the quality of goods was already raised and it is in existence. In view of the defective supplies the respondent raised a series of complaints with the petitioner and the petitioner is liable to compensate damages to the respondent. The respondent further contends that the petitioner filed the petition on the basis of 13 invoices annexed with the petition of which no amount is due. The amount due as per the invoices have been duly paid and no sum due or payable by the respondent to the petitioner as alleged. To substantiate that contention, the respondent has produced copies of the letter of credit issued by its bank. The respondent further alleged that a dispute regarding the amount demanded by the petitioner already raised by the respondent as per the reply given to the petitioner on 28.11.2016. Upon the above said contentions the respondent prays for rejection of the petition with exemplary cost.