Alumilite Architecturals Limited vs Shrikant Studios Private Limited

Alumilite Architecturals Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Shikant Studio Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Advocate Asim Sood, Advocate Rachitta Rai, Advocate Kuber Bajaj, Advocate Shehan Ashraf, Advocate Shrey Sharma, Advocates For Respondent: Advocate Aparna Devkar, Advocate Shiva Krishna Murti.

ORDER

17.08.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 03.02.2023 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority by which Section 9 Application filed by the

Appellant has been dismissed. The Adjudicating Authority has dismissed

Section 9 Application on the ground that there is a pre-existing dispute with

the Corporate Debtor.

3. The Adjudicating Authority has noticed that Commercial Suit No.

232/2017 was filed in the High Court of Bombay by the Appellant. Learned

Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Order contends that suit was filed

for the recovery of the dues and that cannot be treated to be any pre-existing

dispute. He has further referred to Letter dated 30th June, 2016 issued by the

Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor where it is submitted that there

is an acknowledgement of dues of the Appellant to the extent of Rs. 21 Lakhs. -2-

4. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the

Appellant and perused the record.

5. The Appellant had filed the Commercial Suit on 19.12.2016 in the

Bombay High Court and Demand Notice was issued on 22.10.2018. Demand

Notice was replied by the Corporate Debtor disputing the claim and when

Section 9 Application was filed, detail reply was filed by the Corporate Debtor.

Copy of the Reply filed by the Corporate Debtor in Section 9 Application has

been brought on record by the Appellant as Annexure A-3. In paragraph 7 of

the Reply under the heading "Pre-Existing Dispute prior to Demand Notice

dated 22.10.2018", the Corporate has given the sequence of the events and

details including the termination of work order and giving of the fresh work

orders. Further details of dispute between the parties have been mentioned

including the letter dated 30th June, 2016 which has been relied on by Learned

Counsel for the Appellant.

6. There being dispute between the parties as detailed in paragraph 7 of

the Reply and the Commercial Suit No. 232 of 2016 in the High Court of

Bombay, we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority did not commit any

error in rejecting Section 9 Application on the pre-existing dispute. No ground

is made out to entertain the appeal, the Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Basant/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.538/2023