J U D G M E N T

[Per; V. P. Singh, Member (T)]

This Appeal emanates from the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru in C.P. (IB) No.260/BB/2019, whereby the Adjudicating Authority has admitted the Application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (7CIRP8) against the 7Corporate Debtor8, filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (in short 7I&B Code8) on 24th October 2019, in the case of Neeraj Jain, Director of M/s Flipkart India Private Limited Vs. M/s Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The parties are referred to by their original status in the Company Petition for the sake of convenience.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Company Petition No. CP (IB) No. 260/BB/2019 is filed by M/s Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd., under Section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the 7Corporate Debtor8 M/s Flipkart India Private Limited on the ground that it has committed default for an amount of Rs.26,95,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-six crore ninety-five lacs only).

3. The Operational Creditor M/s Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Private Limited contends that the Corporate Debtor Flipkart India Private Limited contacted the Operational Creditor and showed interest in selling its product of LED TVs. The Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor subsequently entered into a Supply Agreement dated 29th December 2016.

The Operational Creditor had been importing and supplying LED TVs to the Corporate Debtor from time to time, under purchase orders as per Clause 2(a) of the Supply Agreement placed by the 7Corporate Debtor8, which provides for the manner of order placement. The 7Corporate Debtor8 used to place purchase orders through e-mails which were duly acknowledged by the Operational Creditor. After receiving the said purchase order, Operational Creditor used to import and procure the required quantities of LED TVs and deliver the same to the 7Corporate Debtor8 at its desired location.

The 7Corporate Debtor8 received delivery of the first few batches of LED

TVs under the purchase orders dated 07^th January 2017 and 16^th January 2017 and made prompt delivery of the same. After that, the 7Corporate Debtor8 avoided taking delivery of the LED TVs on the ground of lack of warehouse space. The Operational Creditor, in good faith, warehoused the said LED TVs for a temporary period on behalf of the 7Corporate Debtor8. There was no delay in the delivery of the said material. On the other hand, the 7Corporate Debtor8 delayed collecting the LED TVs, and in some instances did not collect them at all. In an attempt to gain more profit out of the goods ordered, the 7Corporate Debtor8 was putting pressure on the Operational Creditor to offer the already imported and warehoused LED TVs, at a discounted price. The Operation Creditor, facing huge losses and a liquidity crunch, agreed to offer the said discount, on the condition that the 7Corporate Debtor8 forthwith will take the delivery of the remaining LED TVs, purchased by it and will make payment for the same. The Operational

Creditor had paid excess custom duties because LED TVs were still in the customs warehouse, as the 7Corporate Debtor8 had delayed in providing a delivery schedule. The Operational Creditor demanded the payment of the LED TVs procured and imported for the 7Corporate Debtor, from 11^th October 2017 to 01^st December 2017, based on the import and the purchase order issued by the 7Corporate Debtor8. The 7Corporate Debtor8 had failed to collect more than 70% of the stock as ordered by them till March 2018.

4. The Operational Creditor has issued a demand notice under Form 3 dated 08^th June 2019, under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which was received by the 7Corporate Debtor8 on 13^th June 2019. However, there has been no reply to the same. The 7Corporate Debtor8 has not raised any dispute about the amount outstanding to the Operational C