Ratnarup Projects Private Limited vs Tamanna Hotels Private Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 940 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties, shown by a suit filed by the operational creditor against the corporate debtor's intended allocation of the remaining work before the demand notice under Section 8 was issued, is sufficient to defeat an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; the Adjudicating Authority is not in error in rejecting such an application on that ground.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.03.2023 by which
order, the Adjudicating Authority has rejected Section 9 application filed by
the Appellant.
3. The Appellant's case is that they were given construction work and that
they have completed substantial work of the construction, when they raised
the bill, the payment was not made when the Corporate Debtor wanted to give
the remaining work to some other Contractor an injunction suit was also filed
by the Operational Creditor.
4. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties, came to the
conclusion that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties which
require further enquiry, hence, the application cannot be admitted.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no dispute
and the injunction suit was filed at the stage when the Corporate Debtor
wanted to give the remaining work to some other contractor. He submits that
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 940 of 2023 & I.A. No. 3211 of 2023
1 payments were not made and cheques were also dishonoured for which
Section 138 and Negotiable Instrument Act proceedings were also initiated.
We have considered the submissions and peruse the records.
6. The fact that during the period of contract, the Corporate Debtor
intended to give remaining work to some other contractor which was sought
to be injuncted by filing a suit on 07.12.2018 i.e. much before the Demand
Notice issued u/s 8 i.e. on 10.10.2020, we are of the view that there was
clear dispute between the parties and Adjudicating Authority did not commit
error in rejecting Section 9 application. It is, however, open for the Appellant
to take such remedy as available in law for the amount which according to
the Appellant is due on the Corporate Debtor as per the Agreement.
With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 940 of 2023 & I.A. No. 3211 of 2023
2
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