Lloyd Insultations (India) Ltd vs Sintex Prefab & Infra Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 278 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The existence of a dispute between the parties concerning the services rendered by the operational creditor, as evidenced by pre-existing correspondence, is a ground on which an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 may be rejected, and the Adjudicating Authority is not required to examine whether that dispute is genuine.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M/s. Lloyd Insultations (India) Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Sintex Prefab & Infra Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Abhinav Hansaria and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocates.
O R D E R
14.02.2020─ The Appellant- 'Lloyd Insultations (India) Ltd.' moved an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against 'M/s. Sintex Prefab and Infra Limited'- ('Corporate Debtor'). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad), by impugned order dated 2nd January, 2020 rejected the application on the ground of pre-existence of dispute.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no pre- existence of dispute and e-mail etc. relied upon does not suggest any dispute with regard to service rendered by the Appellant.
3. However, on perusal of the record, we find that there is pre- existence of dispute as rightly held by the Adjudicating Authority. This is evident from an e-mail on 25th July, 2014, as extracted below:
Contd/-............
-2- Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 278 of 2020 -3-
4. The aforesaid e-mail shows that the tank fabrication was in progress, but not a single tank fabrication was completed. The workman- ship was very poor as erection gang could not be retained by 'M/s. Lloyd Insultations (India) Limited' (Appellant).
5. In view of the pre-existence of dispute, it is not desirable to decide whether the dispute raised by the Respondent is genuine or not which can be decided by Court of Competent Jurisdiction and not by the Adjudicating Authority or this Appellate Tribunal.
In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Alok Srivastava) Member(Technical) Ar/g
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 278 of 2020
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