Future Electronics Inc. (Distribution) Pte. Ltd. filed a Company Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Chaipertech Electronics Private Limited, alleging default in payment. The Operational Creditor claimed that the Corporate Debtor failed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,17,95,594.40 towards the purchase price of products supplied.
Future Electronics Inc. (Distribution) Pte. Ltd., an Operational Creditor based in Singapore, filed a petition against Chaipertech Electronics Private Limited, a Corporate Debtor, under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016. The Operational Creditor claimed a default of Rs. 2,17,95,594.40. The Corporate Debtor argued that the Operational Creditor supplied materials without purchase orders, dumped goods, and that the quality of the material was unresolved. The Corporate Debtor also claimed that the Operational Creditor had manipulated documents. The Operational Creditor argued that the Corporate Debtor had admitted to the debt in various e-mails and had not raised any disputes before the demand notice. The Corporate Debtor paid custom duty on the allegedly dumped goods. The ledger
…Sign in to view the parties.
Corporate Debtor approached Operational…
Corporate Debtor sent a legal notice to the…
Future Electronics Inc. (Distribution) Pte. Ltd. filed a Company Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Chaipertech Electronics Private Limited, alleging default in payment. The Operational Creditor claimed that the Corporate Debtor failed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,17,95,594.40 towards the purchase price of products supplied.
Future Electronics Inc. (Distribution) Pte. Ltd., an Operational Creditor based in Singapore, filed a petition against Chaipertech Electronics Private Limited, a Corporate Debtor, under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016. The Operational Creditor claimed a default of Rs. 2,17,95,594.40. The Corporate Debtor argued that the Operational Creditor supplied materials without purchase orders, dumped goods, and that the quality of the material was unresolved. The Corporate Debtor also claimed that the Operational Creditor had manipulated documents. The Operational Creditor argued that the Corporate Debtor had admitted to the debt in various e-mails and had not raised any disputes before the demand notice. The Corporate Debtor paid custom duty on the allegedly dumped goods. The ledger
…Corporate Debtor approached Operational…
Corporate Debtor sent a legal notice to the…