The provision of the Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding amount as well as it cannot be misused to drop the curtain on a healthy organization – Aparna Enterprise Ltd. Vs. SJR Prime Corporation Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The debt became “due” from July 2018, the question is whether it became “payable” by the Corporate Debtor under the law, the answer is in “negative” because there were quality & other issues raised by the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor has issued a Demand Notice dated 18.11.2019 received on 06.12.2019 by the Corporate Debtor and within the stipulated period, the Corporate Debtor vide its letter dated 09.12.2019 has replied and proved beyond doubt that there is an existence of dispute particular the cracks in the projects sites, reduced quality of goods supplied, short supply of concrete multiple snags in windows and doors etc & also raising issue to initiate arbitration proceedings for excess sum of over Rs.9.51 Crore paid to the Appellant etc. This meets the criteria of genuine dispute raised within stipulated period. Accordingly, under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) Application needs to be rejected. The provision of the Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding amount as well as it cannot be misused to drop the curtain on a healthy organization.

The provision of the Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding amount as well as it cannot be misused to drop the curtain on a healthy organization – Aparna Enterprise Ltd. Vs. SJR Prime Corporation Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »