Rohini Industrial Electricals Ltd vs National Textiles Corporation Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 420 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where evidence is placed on record showing that a dispute between the parties existed prior to the issuance of a demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority cannot entertain an application under Section 9 of the Code on the basis of that debt. Whether the operational creditor's claim is undisputed, including whether the corporate debtor's later acceptance of liability after rectification of the work displaces a pre-existing dispute, is a question of fact which the Adjudicating Authority is not in a position to determine in a Section 9 proceeding and which must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 420 of 2020 In the matter of: Rohini Industrial Electricals Ltd. ....Appellant
Vs.
National Textiles Corporation Ltd. ....Respondent
Present: Appellant: Mr. K. Dutta, Mr. Rohit Gandhi and Ms. Mehak Khurana, Advocates. Respondent:
ORDER
13.03.2020: 'Rohini Industrial Electricals Ltd.' (Operational Creditor)
moved application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against 'National
Textiles Corporation Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi (Court No. IV) by impugned order
dated 10th January, 2020 rejected the application on the ground of pre-existing
dispute.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the work was completed
in the year 2014 and completion certificate was handed over to the Respondent.
He further submitted that the Respondent acknowledged the liability through
letters from time to time including letters dated 5th April, 2017 and 15th
December, 2018. The Master Data of the Corporate Debtor has also been
enclosed to suggest that the debt is due. We are not going in the issue as to
whether application under Section 9 was barred by limitation or not, as -2-
Appellant has brought on record certain correspondences to suggest
acknowledgment by the Corporate Debtor. The question as noticed is whether
there is a pre-existing dispute or not.
3. From the record we find that invoice for the value of Rs.13,18,35,161/-
was raised by the Appellant, against which Corporate Debtor paid a sum of
Rs.11,34,03,966/-. According to the Appellant a sum of Rs.1,84,31,195/-
remained due and payable. Demand notice under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code
was issued by the Appellant on 4th December, 2018. The Corporate Debtor in
reply pointed out the existence of dispute between the parties. The Adjudicating
Authority noticed that by letter dated 20th October, 2012, the Appellant was
informed by the Corporate Debtor to complete the work and submit the final bill.
The payment of balance amount is pending on account of non-fulfilment of
contractual obligations. The emails regarding deficiencies in services and their
rectification were communicated between the parties including email dated 28th
December, 2013 and 6th January, 2014. This apart letter dated 29th June, 2017
was also forwarded for rectification of certain works. Learned counsel for the
Appellant submits that letter dated 23rd June, 2018 was written by the Appellant
and it has wrongly been relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority. All the works
about which deficient service was alleged were rectified and subsequently, the
Corporate Debtor accepted the liability of payment.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 420 of 2020 -3-
4. On hearing learned counsel for the Appellant and perusal of the record,
we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority is not in a position to determine
the dispute on question of fact as to work completed or not completed or rectified
or not. The question as to whether on rectification of the work, the Corporate
Debtor accepted the liability and thereby there was no existence of dispute is a
question of fact which can be determined only by Court of competent jurisdiction
and not in an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code. Once evidence are
brought on record to show pre-existing dispute raised prior to issuance of
demand notice under Section 8(1), the Adjudicating Authority cannot entertain
the application under Section 9. We find no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly
dismissed. However, order passed by the Adjudicating Authority or this
Appellate Tribunal will not come in the way of the Appellant to move before the
appropriate forum for appropriate relief.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
[Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 420 of 2020
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