Ncc Ltd vs Saptarishi Hotels Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1032 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not maintainable where there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties, and a dispute is pre-existing for this purpose where the parties, by their agreement, have chosen an alternative forum to settle the dispute, so that the operational creditor's recourse lies to that forum or to a court of competent jurisdiction rather than to the insolvency process, and the failure of that alternative process does not by itself entitle the creditor to invoke the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NCC Limited ...Appellant
Vs
Saptrishi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abir Roy and Mr. Ishaan Chakrabarti, Advocates. For Respondent:
ORDER
14.10.2019: The Appellant - 'NCC Limited' preferred application under
Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'I&B Code') for
initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against 'Saptrishi Hotels
Pvt. Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company
Law Tribunal), Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad rejected the application by
impugned order dated 20th August, 2019 on the ground of pre-existence of
dispute.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no pre-existing
dispute. But from the record we find that it is not disputed that Terms of
Agreement dated 1st November, 2011 with regard to purported admitted dues no
amount was paid by the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant moved before the
Engineer, who was required to decide the dispute. According to learned counsel
for the Appellant, such process of alternative forum has failed. But that cannot -2-
be a ground to invoke Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under I&B Code
since as per Terms of Agreement dated 1st November, 2011 there is an alternative
forum which was chosen by the parties to settle dispute. The Appellant could
have moved before a Court of Law of competent jurisdiction.
3. In the aforesaid background, in view of the pre-existing dispute, we also
agree that application under Section 9 of I&B Code was not maintainable. The
appeal is dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
(Kanthi Narahari) Member (Technical) am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1032 of 2019
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