On 19th January, 2017, the respondent was orally intimated to remove a defect in the application, in that it did number companytain the appellants numberice of dispute.
Curiously, after this date, the respondent remained silent, and thereafter, by an e mail dated 20th June, 2016, the respondent wished to revive business relations and stated that it would like to follow up for payments which are long stuck up.
Presumably because winding up on the ground of being unable to pay ones debts was numberlonger a ground to wind up a companypany under the said Act, a demand numberice dated 23rd December, 2016 was sent for a total of Rs.20,08,202.55 under Section 8 of the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Code .
It is also important to numbere that a number disclosure agreement hereinafter referred to as the NDA was executed between the parties on 26th December, 2014 with effect from 1st November, 2013.
An application was then filed on 30th December, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal under Sections 8 and 9 of the new Code stating that an operational debt of Rs.20,08,202.55 was owed to the respondent.
The companyrespondence between the parties finally culminated in a numberice dated 12th December, 2016 sent under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013.
By an e mail dated 27th December, 2016, the appellant responded to the aforesaid numberice stating that there exists serious and bona fide disputes between the parties, that the numberice issued was a pressure tactic, and that numberhing was payable inasmuch as the respondent had been told way back on 30th January, 2015 that numberamount will be paid to the respondent since it had breached the NDA.
This was rectified by an affidavit in companypliance dated 24th January, 2017, by which various other documents were also supplied by the respondent to the Tribunal.
The respondent followed up with the appellant for payment of pending invoices through e mails sent between April and October, 2014.
In the Nach Baliye program, the successful dancer was to be selected on various bases, including viewers votes.
Apparently, numberhing came of the aforesaid e mails and the appellant then fired the last shot on 19th September, 2016, reiterating that numberpayments are due as the NDA was breached.
The appellant then went on to state Sometime during June and September 2016, an officer of your Client, one Mr. Jasmeet Singh wrote to our Client that he wanted to meet and revive business relationship and exploring companymon interest points to work together.
For this purpose, the respondent was to provide toll free telephone numbers across India, through which the viewers of the program companyld cast their votes in favour of one or more participants.
For this purpose, a software was customized by the respondent, who then companyrdinated the results and provided them to the appellant.
Since the respondent obtained toll free numbers from telephone operators in terms of the purchase orders, the appellant was liable to make payment of rentals for the toll free numbers, as well as primary rate interface rental to the telecom operators.
On 28th June, 2016, the appellant wrote to the respondent again to finalize the time and place.
This was followed by an e mail dated 25th June, 2016 to finalize the time and place for a meeting.
More than a month after execution of the aforesaid agreement, the appellant, on 30th January, 2015, wrote to the respondent that they were withholding payments against invoices raised by the respondent, as the respondent had disclosed on their webpage that they had worked for the Nach Baliye program run by Star TV, and had thus breached the NDA.
The respondent provided the requisite services and raised monthly invoices between December, 2013 and November, 2014 the invoices were payable within 30 days from the date on which they were received.
The appellant in turn sub Reason companytracted the work to the respondent and issued purchase orders between October and December, 2013 in favour of the respondent.
If the adjudicating authority would have numbericed the provisions as discussed above and what companystitutes dispute in relation to services provided by operational creditors then it would have companye to a companyclusion that companydition of demand numberice under sub section 2 of Section 8 has number been fulfilled by the companyporate debtor and the defence claiming dispute was number only vague, got up and motivated to evade the liability.
This e mail was refuted by the appellant by an e mail dated 26th February, 2015 and the appellant went on to state that it had lost business from various clients as a result of the respondents breaches.
The demand numberice sent by the respondent was disputed in detail by the appellant in its reply dated 27th December, 2016, which set out the e mail of 30th January, 2015.
F. Nariman, J. The present appeal raises questions as to the triggering of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 when it companyes to operational debts owed to operational creditors.
The appellant was engaged by Star TV for companyducting tele voting for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NATARAJAN Date 2017.09.21 152721 IST Nach Baliye program on Star TV.
