Suish Chandel Minerals Private Limited vs Psm Energy Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Suish Chandel Minerals Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus PSM Energy Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ketan Madan, Mr. Himanshu Harbola and Mr. Gunjit Juneja, Advocates. For Respondents : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.01.2026: Heard counsel for the Appellant.

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.09.2025 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the Section 9 application on the

ground that pre-existing dispute. In paragraph 10 to 13 Adjudicating

Authority has made following observations:-

"10. The Respondent submitted that Clause 4 of the Trial Order clearly provided that, on Applicant's request, Respondent would bear the expenses towards diesel, spare parts, consumables, staff, and local petty labour during the trial period, or until Applicant had set up its own camp and facilities at the work site. It was further stipulated that all such expenses incurred by Respodent on behalf of Applicant would be adjusted against the invoices raised by Applicant for works executed under the Trial Order.

"4. As per the specific request of the Contractor, for the trial period of 3 months or until their camp facility is established at the site, we will arrange and make payments on your behalf for the supply of diesel, spare parts, consumable stuff and local petty labour on an actual cost basis. This will be done on the basis of a pure agent, with no additional service charges or profit margin applied. All such costs/ expenses and expenditure incurred by the Company will be adjusted against your running bill, or any other invoice that may be raised by you. The remaining balance or outstanding amount to be settled as per the contract."

11. The Respondent in its response had submitted that pursuant to Clause 4 of the Trial Work Order, Respondent duly incurred expenses towards supply of diesel, spare parts, consumables, staff, and local petty labour on behalf of Applicant, as the latter failed to establish its camp and facilities at the site. In this regard, Respondent incurred a total cost of INR 1,51,36,583/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-One Lakhs Thirty- Six Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Three only), which was squarely on the account of Applicant. These costs were within the knowledge of Applicant 1 and were duly acknowledged and accepted by it at the relevant time.

12. As stipulated under Clause 4, the said costs were liable to be adjusted against the invoices raised by Applicant under the Trial Order, with only the balance, if any, being payable by PSMEPL. Admittedly, Applicant raised invoices on 30.11.2023 for a cumulative amount of INR 1,56,53,880/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-Six Lakhs Fifty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty only)."

2. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that there was

no pre-existing dispute between the parties and the reliance on the letter

dated 16.08.2024 issued by one Director cannot be basis for coming to the

conclusion that there was pre-existing dispute. He further submits that on

the invoices input tax were taken by the corporate debtor and hence the debt

cannot be disputed by the corporate debtor.

3. In the present case demand notice was issued on 21.08.2024 by the

appellant-operational creditor claiming an amount of Rs.1,56,53,880/-.

Demand notice was immediately replied by the corporate debtor on

2 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1907 of 2025 30.08.2024 refuting the claim of the operational creditor; reference to the

letter dated 16.08.2024 was also made in the said reply to demand notice. In

paragraph 11 of the reply to the demand notice following was stated:-

"11. It is important to highlight that prior to the issuance of the Demand Letter, SCMPL itself issued a letter dated 16th August 2024 to PSMEPL highlighting the aforesaid fact and duly acknowledging that the total outstanding amount payable by PSMEPL in terms of the above invoices is INR 5,17,297. Vide the said letter, SCMPL clearly acknowledges the fact that PSMEPL has paid several expenses/payments towards supply of diesel, spare parts, consumables, staff and local petty labour on behalf of SCMPL due to non-availability of their camp facility on the work site. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow:

"Kindly note that with respect to the above, we hereby admit and acknowledge that the total outstanding amount payable from the PSM is INR 5,17,297 (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventeen Thousands Two Hundred Ninety Seven only), while the remaining outstanding amount has duly been paid by PSM to us through different mutually agreed business arrangements, including but not limited to costs towards diesel, labour, spare parts, consumables and other expenses that PSM has incurred on account of non- establishment of camp facilities at the work site. We therefore kindly request you to take note of the aforesaid. Further, in light of the aforesaid, all claims raised by us pursuant to Invoice No. SMPL/BALJUNDRA/23-24/01, Invoice No. SMPL/BALJUNDRA/23-24/02 and Invoice No. SMPL/BALJUNDRA/23-24/03, all dated 30.11.2023 (collectively the "Invoices") stands fully settled and paid to the satisfaction of the Contractor and no outstanding amount remains pending, except INR 5,17,297."

4. The present is a case where reply to the demand notice was issued by

the corporate debtor which is the notice of dispute within meaning Section

8/ 9 of the IBC. When notice of dispute has been issued by the corporate

debtor u/s 9(5)(ii)(d) Adjudicating Authority is obliged to reject the

3 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1907 of 2025 application. The submission of the counsel for the appellant that letter

which was written by one Director of the corporate debtor does not bind

other Directors and atleast that was a dispute interse between company and

cannot be basis for reliance by the Adjudicating Authority. The letter dated

16.08.2024 which has been referred in the reply to the demand notice is to

the following effect:-

"SUISH CHANDEL MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED REG.OFFICE: B - 13/15 UPPER GROUND FLOOR, CHHATTARPUR EXTENSTION, SOUTH DELHI - 110074, DELHI CIN: U10300DL2022PTC403001 E-MAIL ID: legalitestaff@gmail.com Date: 16.08.2024 To, PSM Energy Private Limited Ground Floor, A-25, Harmu Housing Colony, Harmu Road, Harmu Housing Colony, Near Patel Chowk, Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834002.

Dear Sir,

This has reference to the ongoing contractual arrangements and other issues between M/s Suish Chandel Minerals Pvt. Ltd. ("Contractor") and PSM Energy Private Limited ("PSM") with respect to "Rehandling of 14.88L CuM Overburden at Balkudra Open Cast mine of Bhurukunda Colliery, Barka Sayal Area of CCL".

Kindly note that with respect to the above, we hereby admit and acknowledge that the total outstanding amount payable from the PSM is INR 5,17,297 (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventeen Thousands Two Hundred Ninety Seven only), while the remaining outstanding amount has duly been paid by PSM to us through different mutually agreed business arrangements, including but not limited to costs towards diesel, labour, spare parts, consumables and other expenses that PSM has incurred on account of non-establishment of camp facilities at the work site.

We therefore kindly request you to take note of the aforesaid. Further, in light of the aforesaid, all claims raised by us pursuant to Invoice No. SMPL/BALKUDRA/23-24/01, Invoice No. SMPL/BALKUDRA/23- 24/02 and Invoice No. SMPL/BALKUDRA/23-24/03, all dated 4 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1907 of 2025 30.11.2023 (collectively the "Invoices") stands fully settled and paid to the satisfaction of the Contractor and no outstanding amount remains pending, except INR 5,17,297.

For, SUISH CHANDEL MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED

SHASHI BHUSHAN RAM DIRECTOR Din: 09679365"

When the letter which was written by one Director of the operational creditor

to the corporate debtor and has been referred to and relied in reply to the

demand notice, the contents of the reply to the demand notice cannot be

said to be a moonshine defence and the reply to demand notice is based on

facts and is not unsupported by materials and in the present case

Adjudicating Authority having relied on the reply to the demand notice has

come to the conclusion that there is a pre-existing dispute. We thus do not

find any error in the order warranting interference by this Appellate

Tribunal.

We, however, make it clear that dismissal of Section 9 application

shall not preclude the appellant to claim its dues, if any, against the

corporate debtor in accordance with law.

With the above observations, we dismiss the appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

5 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1907 of 2025