Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ksheeraabd Construction Pvt Ltd vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal11 November 2024Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The pendency of arbitral proceedings between the parties, which include a dispute over the encashment of a bank guarantee and other disputes arising out of the same contract, is a sufficient ground for an Adjudicating Authority to reject an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process, where the operational creditor claims as a sub-contractor of the corporate debtor and the dispute arising out of the contract is engaging the attention of the Arbitrator.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1854 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Ksheeraabd Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Prateek Sensaria, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Mr. Aditya, Mr. Aman Bajaj, Mr. Akshay Sinha, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

11.11.2024: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned

counsel for the Respondent. This appeal has been filed against the order

dated 02.08.2024 passed by NCLT, Mumbai Bench-VI by which Section 9

application filed by the Appellant has been rejected.

2. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noted that

Arbitration Proceeding is already proceeding and both the parties have filed

their claim. The Commercial Arbitration Petition No.1220/2018 was filed on

26.10.2018 whereas proceeding under Section 9 was filed subsequently on

14.01.2019. Learned counsel for the Appellant does not dispute that parties

are before the Arbitrator and apart from issue pertaining to encashment of

bank guarantee there are other disputes between the parties.

3. We are of the view that when the parties are in arbitration which also

include allegation of encashment of bank guarantee, the Adjudicating

Cont'd.../ 2

Authority did not commit any error in rejecting Section 9 application filed by

the Appellant. Appellant claims to be sub-contractor of the Corporate Debtor

and dispute between the parties arising out of the contract having engaging

attention of the Arbitrator, we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority has

rightly passed the order rejecting Section 9 petition. There is no merit in the

appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1854 of 2024

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free