contentions raised in reply and further submitted that the company petition no.1136 of 2017 was withdrawn by the operational creditor for the want of technical discrepancy as the notice in prescribed format was not served upon the corporate debtor, therefore, the same has no effect on the facts and circumstances in relations to the claims forming subject of the present petition. It is further averred that in its reply letter dated 14.05.2016 to the legal notice of the Applicant dated 22.04.2016, the respondent has admitted that the claims in furtherance of the debit notice of ₹15,60,326.94 was revised and reduced to ₹10,43,923.20, this by itself is also an admission of liability by the Respondent. However, the Respondent has contended that the payment thereof is subject to the condition of the Applicant returning to the Respondents defective spare parts to the tune of ₹15,23,224, and ultimately held the Applicant liable to pay the balance amount of ₹4,79,300.80, being the differential amount towards return of the spare parts i.e. ₹15,23,224 and the approved claim of the Applicant i.e ₹10,43,923.20. It is argued that all the defective goods lying with the Applicants were returned to the Respondents on 21.10.2015 by courier, and the same was communicated to the Respondent vide email dated 24.10.2015. It is further stated that the respondent has failed to produce any material on record to suggest that the engineers of the applicant were inappropriate or dishonest in their conduct. At the end, it is submitted that the claim is well covered under the definition of debt under the
