Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
M/S Oriental Coal Corporation vs M/S Decore Exxoils Pvt Ltd on 26 October, 2021 cites

Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd vs Kirusa Software Private Ltd on 21 September, 2017

14. A perusal of the Debit Note dated 24.03.2017 read together with the Goods Received Notes and the Laboratory Test Report of the goods supplied show that there is a 'Pre-Existing Dispute', prior to the issuance of the Notice under Section 8. The defence raised by the 'Corporate Debtor' is not a sham defence and not a feeble or unsupported assertion. The record shows that there is documentary evidence filed in support of the defence. To reiterate, in their Reply all the facts with respect to substandard quality of material, the issuance of Debit Notes raised for the same, has been stated. We are of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd.' (Supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, and hence this Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. No Order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 272 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Rajeev K. Aggarwal vs Panipat Taxo Fabs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 27 November, 2018

 The Learned Counsel vehemently denied that there was any dispute regarding the quality or quantity of the supply of steam coal and that there was any Test Report stating that the quality was substandard. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. 'Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd.' (2018) 1 SCC 353, in 'Rajiv Kumar Aggarwal' Vs. 'Panipat Texo Fabs Pvt. Ltd.', 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 656 and in 'Anoop Sushil Dubey' Vs. 'National Agriculture Co- operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd.', 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 674 in support of his contentions.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Laina Power Engineering vs Sokeo Power Private Limited on 16 August, 2018

 As per the statements of accounts provided by the Appellant, the total outstanding as on 31.03.2014 is Rs.16,31,152/- out of which a sum of Rs.10 Lakh/- was paid by the Respondent and a sum of Rs.6,31,152/- remained payable. Thereafter in the month of November 2014, out of the steam coal provided by the Appellant, 69.52 MT of steam coal was found to be inferior. Thereafter the payment of Rs.15 Lakhs/- was made on 24.01.2014, though the outstanding of Nagpur Plant was only Rs.1,36,985/- hence the Respondent paid in excess an amount of Rs.13,63,015/-. Thereafter, the Appellant supplied 234.82 MT of steam coal for Rs.16,95,627/- levying an outstanding sum of Rs.3,32,612/-. Further as the Respondent rejected steam coal worth Rs.5,05,282/-, there was a credit of Rs.1,72,670/- which had to be adjusted by the Appellant. For the Mandideep Plant, the Appellant supplied goods for Rs.6,31,152/-, for which the Respondent generated a Debit Note for Rs.4,58,482/- levying an outstanding sum of Rs.1,72,670/-, which is the same sum which had to be adjusted for Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1015 of 2020 -5- the excess payment made by the Respondent for the Nagpur Plant, therefore no amount was payable by the Respondent to the Appellant.  The Learned Counsel relied on the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'M/s. Capital Partners' Vs. 'Reliance Defence and Engineering Ltd.' [2017 SCC OnLine NCLT 2485], in 'Kalpataru Properties Private Limited' Vs. 'Innovative Ideals & Services (India) Private Limited' [2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 1604], and in 'Laina Power Engineering' Vs. 'Sokeo Power Private Limited' [2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 414], in support of his contention.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1