Parmod Yadav & Anr vs Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 251 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a corporate debtor has, before the operational creditor's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is filed, issued a request under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 calling for a dispute to be referred to arbitration, arbitral proceedings are commenced on receipt of that request, and the existence of a dispute at that stage renders an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code not maintainable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order dated 28th September, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi in CP No. IB/209/ND/2017)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Parmod Yadav & Anr. ...Appellants
Vs.
Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants:- Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Advocate.
For Respondent:- Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Ms. Inayat Ahmed and Ms. Rehana Ahmed, Advocates.
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
The Appellants preferred application under Section 9 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'I&B
Code') for initiation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against
Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ('Corporate Debtor'). The Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, rejected the application by
impugned order dated 28th September, 2017 on the ground of 'existence
of dispute'.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 251 of 2017 2
2. The factual matrix for filing the application under section 9 of the
'I&B Code' was noticed by the Adjudicating Authority is as follows:
"2. The Applicants being mother and daughter
state that they are owners of service apartment
bearing No. 915-A, 9th Floor, Soul City Service
Apartment Complex situated at Plot N.4, Sector-13,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110078. According to the
Applicants, the built up area of the Service Apartment
is 34 mtrs. and the super built area is of 68 sq.mtrs. It
is further stated that in relation to the said property a
lease agreement was entered into between the owners
being the Applicants as 'Lessors' with the 'Corporate
Debtor' being the 'Lessee' on 16.8.2014. However,
lease was made effective retrospectively on and from
10.1.2012 correlating with certain agreement having
nomenclature of Hotelier-Buyer agreement. The
duration of the lease it is claimed is for a period of 15
years effective from 10.1.2012 and the monthly rental
payable being Rs.1,37,250/- plus service tax, if any,
applicable. The lock-in period in relation to both the
parties of the property described as above, it is claimed
is for a period of 15 years. While so, it is claimed by
the Applicants/ landlords that the Lessee namely the
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 251 of 2017 3
'Corporate Debtor' had chosen to issue the termination
notice dated 4.4.2016 terminating the agreement
entered into between the parties before the expiry of
lease time period of 15 years, in other words within the
lock-in period specified in the agreement. It is also
stated that at the time of terminating the same,
Rs.12,62,700/- was due by way of rentals and
interest was also due for the defaulted amount @12%
per annum which comes to around Rs.1,95,718.03. In
addition to the non-payment of rentals for the period in
which the 'Corporate Debtor' was in occupation of the
premises, the Applicant has also put forth a claim
w.e.f. 10.4.2016 to 9.1.2027 in relation to monthly
rentals for the unexpired period of lock-in to the extent
of Rs. 2,60,05,539.74 which it is claimed is also
payable along with the interest at 12% p.a. The
aggregate amount thereby it is claimed by the
Operational Creditor is in a sum of Rs.2,74,63,957.77
and in relation to the said sum Applicants state that
the notice of demand as required to be issued under
Section 8(1) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016
dated 22.4.2017 had been sent which the Applicants
claim was also served by courier on the 'Corporate
Debtor' on 24.4.2017. In view of the fact that no
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 251 of 2017 4
payment of the amount claimed in default has been
remitted nor the notice of demand being replied to,
which it is stated to have made the Operational
Creditor to file under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 this
Petition for invoking the Corporate Resolution Process
(CIRP) against the 'Corporate Debtor'."
3. The 'Corporate Debtor' admitted the claim and stated that the claim
is based on the lease agreement dated 16th August, 2014 and was
terminated w.e.f. 4th April, 2016 and therefore, no default can be claimed
on the basis of their earlier agreement.
4. It was submitted that the application is a counter blast to the claim
of the Respondent ('Corporate Debtor') towards maintaining the premises
in a sum of Rs. 3,60,841/- required to be paid for the period between
April, 2016 to June, 2017 which remained unpaid. Further, the case of
the Respondent is that there is an 'existence of dispute'.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent brought to the notice of the
Adjudicating Authority the notice of alleged Arbitration Proceedings
issued on 17th January, 2017 by the 'Corporate Debtor' and took plea
that in the said notice no attributable dispute has been detailed as
required under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 251 of 2017 5
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants referred to
the agreement dated 16th August 2014, which came into effect from 10th
January, 2012, to suggest that the Appellants are 'Operational Creditor'.
It was submitted that the Appellants has leased the premises for
commercial purposes which come within the meaning of 'services' for the
purpose of sub-section (21) of Section 5 of the 'I&B Code'.
7. It was also submitted that if a premise is leased for commercial
purpose, the land-lord on collection is required to pay Service Tax, but in
view of exemption of payment of Service Tax upto Rs.10 lakhs, the
Appellant has not deposited the Service Tax.
8. From the record we find that notice was issued on behalf of
'Corporate Debtor' on 17th January, 2017 to the Appellants for
appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, which reads as follows:
"Dated: 17.01.2017
To
1. Mrs. Parmod Yadav W/o Mr. R.C. Yadav House No. E-2134 Palam Vihar Gurgaon Haryana
2. Mrs. Sneha Yadav W/o Mr. Siddharth Yadav House No. E-2135 Palam Vihar Gurgaon Haryana
SUBJECT: Appointment of Sole Arbitrator
Dear Sir / Madam,
We M/s Divine Infracon Private Limited having our office at Plot No. 4, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075 (hereinafter referred to as 'Divine') requests your good-self to resolve through arbitration proceedings, the dispute or disputes, whatsoever arising out of Hotelier Buyer Agreement
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 251 of 2017 6
dated: 10.01.2012, Sale Deed dated 23.07.2012 and Lease Agreement dated 10.01.2012 between us on one part and your good self on the other. As per the Hotelier Buyer Agreement dated: 10.01.2012, Divine Infracon and your good-self have to mutually decide upon a sole arbitrator, in case of any dispute arises between the parties.
Relevant clause i.e. Clause No. 32 (at page no.8) of the Hotelier Buyer Agreement dated: 10.01.2012 is reproduced herein for your ease of reference;
"Any and all disputes or differences between THE HOTELIER and THE BUYER arising out of or in connection with this agreement or its performance shall be settled amicably within 15 days through consultation between the Parties. Thereafter, if the Parties failed to reach an amicable settlement on any or all disputes or differences arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or its performance, such disputes or differences shall be submitted to Arbitration for final adjudication.
Arbitration proceedings shall be concluded by a Sole Arbitrator to be mutually decided by the Parties. Such arbitration shall be in accordance with the Indian (Arbitration and Conciliation) Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") and the rules made there under and / or any amendments thereof.
The arbitration proceedings shall be held in English and at New Delhi.
Decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties.
The Courts at Delhi alone shall have the exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of this Agreement."
In view of the aforementioned clause prevailing, we do hereby suggest the name of the following arbitrators for adjudicating the existing disputes between your good self and M/s Divine Infracon Private Limited. Details of the proposed arbitrators are laid down below:
1. Justice (Retd.) N.K. MODY Former Judge, Madhya Pradesh High Court Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India At: A-192, Defence Colony, New Delhi
2. Mr. K. Venkatraman Advocate Chamber No. 109 Block - 3, Delhi High Court Delhi venkatraj2007@yahoo.com
3. Vibhu Shankar
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 251 of 2017 7
Advocate
Sector - B, Pocket - 1, Flat No. 1049A
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110 070 shankarvibhu@yahoo.co.in
We, therefore, request you to revert to us within next 30 days of receipt hereof, failure to reply or revert to the instant notice, would imply that your good self-have agreed upon the proposed arbitrator as aforementioned to be appointed as Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes existing between the parties herein.
Yours faithfully
M/s Ddivine Infracon Private Limited
Sd/-
Authorised Representative"
9. From the aforesaid letter, it is clear that the 'Corporate Debtor'
made request under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, which reads as follows:
"21. Commencement of arbitral proceedings. ─
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral
proceedings in respect of a particular disputed
commence on the date on which a request for that
dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the
respondent."
10. In view of the fact that the arbitral proceedings commence since
the request made under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, we hold that on commencement of arbitral proceedings, it is
rightly pleaded that there is an existence of dispute and therefore, the
petition under Section 9 was not maintainable.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 251 of 2017 8
11. In view of the aforesaid finding, we are not deciding the question as
to whether the Appellants are 'Operational Creditor' or not. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
NEW DELHI 4th July, 2018 AR
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 251 of 2017
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