Pleasant Valley Development Pvt. Ltd vs Spain Hospitality Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 799 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a corporate debtor, in reply to a demand notice, has raised a dispute concerning the amount claimed by the operational creditor, a dispute that predates the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, that pre-existing dispute is sufficient to justify rejection of an application under Section 9 of the Code. In determining whether a pre-existing dispute exists, the Adjudicating Authority is required only to ascertain whether such a dispute is present; it is not open to the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate the disputed facts, which is a matter for a court of competent jurisdiction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Pleasant Valley Development Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus M/s. Spain Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vikram, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Nikhil Jain, Mr. Mandeep Kalra, Mr. Nitesh Srivastva, Mr. Nishant Shankar, Ms. Isha Khurana and Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Advocates
ORDER
06 .08.2019 Having heard Mr. Abhishek Vikram, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Nikhil Jain, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent and being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of 10
days' time in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 2423 of 2019
stands disposed of.
The Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the 'Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, 'the I&B Code') against 'M/s. Spaine
Hospitality Private Limited', the Adjudicating Authority by impugned order dated
14th June, 2019 rejected the application on the ground of 'pre-existence of
dispute'.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent brought to our
notice that the reply as was submitted on behalf 'M/s. Spaine Hospitality Private
Limited' (Corporate Debtor') on 28th August, 2017 wherein the counsel on behalf
of the 'Corporate Debtor' raised the dispute about the amount payable to the
Appellant against the rent claimed by the Appellant. 2
It was also submitted that the 'Corporate Debtor' through its reply, notice
was also called upon the Appellant to repay a sum or Rs. 75,00,00/- towards
financial assistance sought for by the Appellant and further a sum of Rs. 3
Crores towards the development carried out in the leased premises.
From the record we find that the Demand Notice u/s 8(1) of the I&B Code
was issued by the Appellant subsequently on 25th October, 2018.
From the aforesaid fact it is clear that there is a 'pre-existing dispute' and
the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the dispute raised is not
based on record but such submission cannot be accepted as it is not open to the
Adjudicating Authority to decide disputed facts which can be decided only by the
court of competent jurisdiction. The Adjudicating Authority is only required to
notice whether there is a 'pre-existence of dispute' or not and having found that
there is a 'pre-existence of dispute', the Adjudicating Authority had rightly
rejected the application.
As we find no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. However,
the order(s) passed by the Adjudicating Authority or this Appellate Tribunal will
not come in the way of the Appellant to move before the appropriate court of law.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)
[ Kanthi Narahari ] Member (Technical) /ns/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 799 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