7.3 We find from the Contract(s) entered into between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor that the Corporate Debtor was responsible to make payments of goods against supply thereof to the Ultimate Buyer, as nominated by it. We also find that the Corporate Debtor has sent two repayment plans dated 28.02.2020 and 23.10.2020 wherein the Corporate Debtor has agreed to pay the outstanding dues of Corporate Debtor within the period prescribed in the repayment plan, hence, the abovementioned contentions of the Corporate Debtor cannot be considered. As regards clause 5 of the contract relied upon by the Corporate Debtor in its defence, we find that said clause only stipulated that Ultimate Buyer shall be responsible to insure the goods in transit and any claim for loss of goods shall belong to the Buyer. This condition further affirms our view that the title in the goods passed in favour of the Buyer upon its loading upon the vessel. Further, the condition under the Contract as to jurisdiction lying in Singapore can not preclude the Operational Creditor to take recourse to the Code, as it is a special statute and deal with defaults of the Corporate Debtor to have it resolved. We have perused the copy of invoices also, wherein the consignee is stated to be “To Order”, which indicates that the goods were to be delivered by the vessel master to the party under order of the buyer only. Further, we do not find any communication from the Corporate Debtor that the goods under each of invoice(s) were not received by it or the party under its order, hence the allegation of non-supply of Original Bill of Lading appears to be false, as in the
