M/S Nuevosol Energy Private Limited vs M/S Sarkum Solar Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2325 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority is entitled to reject the application where it is satisfied, on the material before it, that a substantial pre-existing dispute existed between the parties before the issuance of the demand notice. Whether the entire amount due under a settlement between the parties has been paid, or whether some payments remain outstanding, is not a question that can be determined within proceedings under Section 9, and the Adjudicating Authority commits no error by declining to entertain the application on that basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2325 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8749 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Nuevosol Energy Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Sarkun Solar Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents
Present: For Applicant : Mr. D. Satya Sai Sumanth, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Mr. Shaurya Shyam, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
31.01.2025: Heard counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for
the respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.09.2024 by which
Adjudicating Authority has rejected Section 9 application filed by the
appellant. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has held that
there was pre-existing dispute between the parties and Adjudicating Authority
has referred to the emails of the year 2017 in paragraph-8 and 9 of the order
and has come to the conclusion that sequence of the communication indicate
that there was pre-existing dispute and substantial dispute between the
applicant prior to issue a demand notice dated 09.04.2019.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was settlement
between parties dated 10.05.2019 and 26.11.2019 where the operational
creditor accepted to make payment of agreed amount Rs.1,50,32,913/-. Counsel for the respondent submits that payments towards the settlement
have been made. Counsel for the appellant submits that some payments are
still due.
4. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the
records. The question as to whether as per settlement entire payment has
been made or some payments are due is not the issue which can be gone into
in Section 9 application. When Adjudicating Authority has come to the
conclusion that there was substantial pre-existing dispute between the
parties much before issuance of demand notice dated 09.04.2019, the
Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in not entertaining the
Section 9 application. Thus, we do not find any error in the order of
Adjudicating Authority dismissing the Section 9 application. We however
make it clear that it shall be open for the appellant to take such remedies as
available in law.
Hence, Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
2 of 2 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2325 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8749 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