Shree Laxmi Steel vs Rcc Infraventures Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Shree Laxmi Steel ...Appellant(s)

Versus Vs. RCC Infra Ventures Ltd. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Aman Kacheria, Mr. Rishabh Dhanube, Advocates

For Respondents : Ms. Amrita Panda, Mr. Ruchit Joshi, Mr. Karan Kaushal, Advocates

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

05.02.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Counsel for

Respondent.

This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 06/11/2025, by which

Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant has been rejected.

In part IV of the Application, Appellant under item 2 has made following

statements :

"Part-IV : Particulars of Operational Debt

2. AMOUNT CLAIMED TO Amount Claimed to BE IN DEFAULT AND THE be in Default DATE ON WHICH THE DEFAULT OCCURRED Rs. 2,39,89,076/-

(ATTACH THE WORKINGS (Rupees FOR two crore thirty COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT nine lakh eighty nine AND DATES OF DEFAULT IN thousand and seventy six TABULAR FORM) only).

Date on which the Default Occurred : 14.09.2020

As stipulated in the invoices annexed hereto and marked as Annexure "C Colly"/ Pg 43-44

Adjudicating Authority held that date of default mentioned being

14/09/2020, Application is barred by 10(A) and on that ground, the Application

has been rejected. Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 13 , 14 & 17, has made

following observations.

" 13. Other than the date of default mentioned as 14.09.2020, no Amendment Application has been filed, nor has any leave of this Adjudicating Authority been obtained to modify or rely upon any other specific date of default. Furthermore, as held by the Hon'ble NCLAT, this Adjudicating Authority does not have the power to alter or substitute the date of default on its own.

14. The Respondent, in its Written Submissions, has objected that the date of default i.e., 14.09.2020, falls within the ambit of the Section 10A period, during which no application under Section 9 could have been filed. We find merit in the said objection and are constrained to agree with the Respondent that the alleged date of default falls squarely within the period covered under Section 10A.

17. In view of the fact that the date of default relied upon by the Applicant falls within the ambit of Section 10A, and further that the Applicant has failed to establish compliance with its contractual obligations, the Application i.e. CP (IB) No.27/CHD/HRY/2023 stands dismissed."

Ld. Counsel for Appellant submitted that there were several invoices

hence Adjudicating Authority ought to have looked into the correct date of

default. Adjudicating Authority has noted the said submission and has also

referred to the order of this Tribunal in Para 11 and 12, following has been

observed.

3 of 4 "11. From perusal of the Part IV of the Application the explicit date of Default relied by the Applicant at Page 4 of the Application is 14.09.2020. To rely on this date of default, the Applicant has contended that on 14.09.2020 the Applicant sent an email and forwarded a balance confirmation to the Applicant, thereby clearly acknowledging its liability.

12. Other than this the Applicant in Part IV has also indicated that date of default is stipulated in invoices, however when we see the invoices we see no date when debt is payable. Therefore we have no option but to rely on the date of 14.09.2020 as "Date of Default". Further, Hon'ble NCLAT in Royal Construction Vs Gannon Dunkerley & Company Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 393 of 2025 dated 01.04.2025 has observed the following:-

"14. The contention of the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority should have modified the date of default after examining the records is an absurd proposition. If the date of default required any change or modification, the onus was on the Appellant to have sought leave of the Adjudicating Authority to file an amendment application. To expect the Adjudicating Authority to have amended the date of default without any amendment application or specific pleading made for such a modification would tantamount to the Adjudicating Authority exceeding its jurisdiction which cannot be countenanced."

We are of the view that Adjudicating Authority has not committed an

error in rejecting the Application when applicant itself has claimed that date of

default is 14/09/2020 which was a date falling within 10 A period.

3 of 4 We only observe that dismissal of Section 9 Application shall not preclude

the Appellant to take such other remedy available in law in accordance with

law.

With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/ravi

3 of 4