R. K. Associates vs Pranay Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 955 of 2021 IN THE MATTER OF: R.K.& Associates ...Appellant Vs. Pranay Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Singh, Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Mr. Akhil Kukreja, Advocates For Respondent: None

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

25.11.2021: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 07.10.2021

passed by the Adjudicating Authority('NCLT') Jaipur Bench in CP No.(IB) No.

90/9/JPR/2018 by which an application u/s 9 of the 'Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Code', 2016 (IBC) by the Appellant has been rejected.

2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has appointed the Appellant as

'Architect' for his project by 'Work Order' dated 08.07.2015. The Appellant has

continued with his 'Work Order' and there were certain issues raised by the

'Corporate Debtor' by issuing e.mails dated 13.06.2016 and 01.01.2018.

3. The revised 'Work Order' is claimed to have been issued in favour of the

Appellant on 01.02.2017. Certain invoices were sent by the Appellant for

payment after receipt of which issues were raised by the 'Corporate Debtor'.

Notice u/s 8 was issued by the Appellant dated 17.09.2018 which was replied

on 29.09.2018. In the reply to the Section 8 notice, the 'Corporate Debtor'

submitted that there was pre-existing dispute with the Appellant and the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 955 of 2021 1 application u/s 9 need not be entertained. The 'Adjudicating Authority' by the

impugned order has rejected the application.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the dispute raised by the

Respondent in reply to the Section 8 notice was the only dispute's sake and there

was no dispute raised earlier. In view of the revised work order issued in 2017,

the Appellant has completed his work and he was entitled for his fee and the

present was not a case for rejecting the application u/s 9.

5. We have considered the submission and perused the record. The

Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the application has made the following

observations in paragraph 25 of the judgement:-

"25. In the instant matter the Corporate Debtor had

raised the existence of dispute with respect to issue of

service in reply to the demand notice and reiterated the

same issues and contentions in reply to the instant

Application. It is an undisputed fact that Applicant has

been appointed under a Work Order dated 08.07.2015.

The Respondent has not disputed the copy of approval

letter dated 05.11.2015 issued by Urban Improvement

Trust, Kota which is placed on record by the Applicant. Per

contra copy of the emails annexed by the Respondent

shows that there was delay on the part of the Applicant in

providing required designs on time and the Respondent is

not satisfied with the service. Also copy of the meeting Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 955 of 2021 2 minutes annexed by the respondent reflects that the

services provided by the Appellant was unsatisfactory.

Thus, the documents produced by the Respondent shows

that there is pre-existence of dispute with respect to the

providing of drawings on time and deficiency in service."

6. We have also looked into the reply of the 'Corporate Debtor' and the emails

which were relied by the Respondent. Several deficiencies regarding work of the

Appellant were pointed out even before issuance of Demand Notice u/s 8. In the

reply to Section 8 notice also details regarding various issues and dispute raised

with regard to work of the Appellant have been mentioned in detail.

7. We are of the view that the 'Adjudicating Authority' did not commit any

error in rejecting the application u/s 9 being satisfied that there was pre-existing

dispute regarding the work of the Appellant, hence, rejection of the application

cannot be faulted. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Shashi/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 955 of 2021 3