Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ratnarup Projects Private Limited vs Tamanna Hotels Private Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal1 August 2023Ashok Bhushan

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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 940 of 2023 &I.A. No. 3211 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:Ratnarup Projects Pvt. Ltd. ...AppellantVs.Tamanna Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ...RespondentPresent:For Appellant: CA Tarun AroraFor Respondent:ORDER01.08.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

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