Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 10A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 4 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd vs Kirusa Software Private Ltd on 21 September, 2017
23. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of
Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.
9405 of 2017 that "40. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor
has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating
authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of
dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of
dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to
the notice of the operational creditor the "existence" of a dispute or the fact
that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between
the parties. Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage
is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation
and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion
of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from
the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in
doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to
succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute
except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact
and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has
to reject the application."
Rohit Motawat vs Madhu Sharma Proprietor M/S Hind Chem ... on 3 February, 2023
In this regard, he has
relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Rohit Motawat Vs. Madhu
Sharma, CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1152 of 2022 to contend that if the invoice is not
signed by both then the interest cannot be charged because it was a unilateral
act on the part of the seller. He has further argued that though there is a
provision of penalty in the agreement which says that if the invoice is not paid
on or before the payment due date, the purchaser shall pay at a rate equal to
2% over State Bank of India medium term lending rate calculated for the
period from the payment due date and date of actual payment of the invoices.
It is submitted that the penalty amount cannot be equated with interest
because there is no such provision in the Code that the penalty can be
charged as interest from the other side to cross the threshold.
1