Deepa Krishan, Member - (1.) The petitioner M/s BCC Fuba India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Operational Creditor"), had filed a petition for winding up against the respondent company under Section 433(e) read with section 434 (i)(a) and 439 of the Companies Act 1956 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 30th May, 2016 for winding up of M/s SBJ Exports & Mfg. Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporate Debtor"). This Matter was received on transfer from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi pursuant to notification no. G.S.R.1119(E) & S.O 3676(E) dated 7th December, 2016 issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt, of India, The petitioner has filed compliance affidavit in terms of the above notification.
(2.) The petitioner is an operational creditor who has supplied goods to the respondent company M/s SBJ Exports & Mfg. Private Limited. The petitioner/ operational creditor had supplied goods / materials to the Corporate Debtor during the period 2.5.2013 to 8.11.2013 and raised invoices totalling to Rs. 25,35,162/- against which an amount of Rs. 10,34,240/- was received towards the first invoice. The following table containing the details of invoices, due date of payment, delay, interest thereon and total balance due has been filed along with the demand notice issued in Form-3 to the Corporate debtor along with copies of the Invoices. As detailed in the above table towards the total invoice amount of Rs. 25,35,162/-, a sum of Rs. 10,34,240/- has been already paid to the Corporate Debtor. It is stated that the amount claimed to be in default is Rs. 15,00,922/- being the principal amount and the interest of Rs. 10,30,551/-. Thus, the total amount claimed to be in default comes to Rs. 25,31,473/-.
(3.) The Corporate Debtor in their reply filed on 25.05.2017 has denied all the allegations made by the applicant in Form No.-5 of IBC, except what is matter of record. It is stated that in response to petitioner / applicant letter dated 29.03.2016 served as legal notice under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, 1956, demanding payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 21,88,252/-, the respondent vide letter dated 19.04.2016 had specifically denied any outstanding amount which was sent in reply by its counsel. A copy of the said letter has been filed as Annexure A-1. Our attention has been drawn to Para-2 of this letter which is reproduced below: - "That so far as a question of transaction i.e. purchase order for supply of material printed circuit boards (PCB) is concerned the same is not disputed. However, the business relations were started at the behest of your client only. It is clarified that my client has already made the entire full payment as per the ledger account. It seems that some error has happened at your end which is inadvertently showing the balance as claimed by client. It is also hereby affirmed there has never been any delay or default at the end of my client which could be said to be detrimental to the business relation of parties." Learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has further stated that in the letter quoted above, respondent had requested the petitioner to tally account maintained by them with the accounts maintained by the respondents and to intimate the corporate debtor of any outstanding amount. It is further stated that the petitioner / applicant never replied about the account maintained by them. It is stated in the reply that the ledger account maintained by the respondent for 2014-15, which has been certified by the Statutory Auditors of the respondent states that there is no outstanding balance as on date i.e. 26.02.2015. It is further stated that "the Respondent / Corporate Debtor has already made payment of invoices raised by the petitioner on 16.10.2014 (by issuing debit note) which are not reflecting in the ledger account maintained by petitioner / Operational Creditor". A copy of the debit notes along with copy of ledger account maintained by the respondent has been filed along with the reply as Annexure A-2. The copy of courier service receipt evidencing service of debit note has also been annexed with the reply as Annexure A-3.;