At, National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. B.S.V. PRAKASH KUMAR
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. V. NALLASENAPATHY
By, TECHNICAL MEMBER
For the Applicant: Ankit Lohia and Yuvraj K. Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Jawarharlal, Hardik Sanghavi, Advocates.
1. The petitioner-company namely Kirusa Software P. Ltd., has filed this operational creditor petition stating that the debtor company is liable to pay Rs. 20,08,202 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum as the corporate debtor failed to repay the same, the petitioner, hence, filed this petition.
2. The petitioner says that the corporate debtor had issued purchase orders (POs) to the petitioner/operational creditor to run "Nach Baliye" Dance Reality show tele-voting campaign for Star. TV (campaign), which were accepted by the petitioner. It has filed POs with this petition. In pursuance of the POs issued by the debtor company, the petitioner rendered services by devising a specific software application for this purpose of tele-voting through the toll-numbers from telecom operators. Accordingly, the petitioner raised monthly invoices on the corporate debtor for the total number of minutes of usage generated by the campaign including other rental, as on date, the invoices raised by the petitioner on the corporate debtor for the services provided per the POs remain outstanding and payable by the corporate debtor to the petitioner as detailed n paragraph 2 of Part IV of the petition. Hence the debtor company is liable to make payment to the petitioner, toll-free numbers rentals and the primary rate interface rental as raised by the telecom operators.
3. As the tele-voting was conducted successfully, the petitioner, as mentioned above, raised invoices against the sentences rendered, therefore the corporate debt is payable by the corporate debtor as per the invoices raised by the petitioner on the corporate debtor during the period between May 13, to December 23, 2016.
4. When this Bench has directed the petitioner to furnish the requisite documents as described under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the petitioner filed the notice of dispute raised by the corporate debtor disclosing the corporate debtor disputing the claim made by the petitioner.
5. Though the petitioner filed all the invoices raised on the debtor company aggregating debt to Rs. 20,08,202 details of transaction on account of which debt fell due, default thereof and demand notice served upon the debtor, for this Bench having noticed that notice of dispute raised by the respondent side has not been annexed to the company petition, this Bench hereby directed to furnish the documents as prescribed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In compliance of it, the petitioner filed the notice of dispute issued by the corporate debtor disclosing the corporate debtor disputing the claim made by the petitioner. On perusal of this sub-section (5) of section 9 of this Code, it is evident that notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor.
6. On perusal of this notice dated December 27, 2016 disputing the debt allegedly owed to the petitioner, this Bench, looking at the corporate debtor disputing the claim raised by the petitioner in this company petition, hereb
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
y holds that the default payment being disputed by the corporate debtor, for the petitioner has admitted that the notice of dispute dated December 27, 2016 has been received by the operational creditor, the claim made by the petitioner is hit by section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, hence this petition is hereby rejected.