Vishal Sharma vs Scoop Brand Holdinggs Pvt. Ltd

Vishal Sharma, Proprietor, ....Appellant M/s. Times Interior Vs. Scoop Brand Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent For Appellant Mr. D. Rageshwar Rao, Advocate. For Respondent

ORDER

17.10.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.05.2023 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Chandigarh

Bench, Chandigarh by which application under Section 9 filed by the

Appellant has been dismissed. Appellant has filed the Application under

Section 9 claiming for amount of Rs. 72,78,246/-. The Adjudicating Authority

rejected Section 9 Application relying settlement between the parties which

took place on 28.09.2017. The Adjudicating Authority has noted the clause of

settlement which state that no proceedings whether legal or otherwise shall be

undertaken by operational creditor for the payment of amounts mentioned in

this undertaking post acceptance of post-dated cheques. 2

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that

the invoice which was issued by the Appellant was dated 17.10.2017 and this

invoice was subsequent to the settlement between the parties.

4. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant

and perused the record.

5. The invoice which was claimed by the Appellant is invoice issued after

the settlement, the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 10 has made following

observations:-

"It is submitted by the Corporate Debtor that the invoices produced by the petitioner are of period where the work between the parties had stopped and the respondent had handed over the work site to the owner. The invoices raised or claimed are not supported by any documents. The petitioner had not paid the statutory taxes.

Moreso, the ledger bills attached by petitioner provide sales invoices against which the various work contract receipts are mentioned as:- 1) invoice no. 032 for amount of Rs. 50,06,740 (dated 07.10.2017) for supply of work done at JW Marriot, Jaipur and works contract receipt is adjusted for Rs. 42,43,000 along with 18% GST of Rs. 7,63,740 2) invoice no. 034 for amount of Rs. 7,67,812 (dated 12.10.2017) for extra work at Sudha Cinepolis, Hyderabad and works contract receipt is adjusted for Rs. 6,50,688 along with 18% GST of Rs. 1,17,124 and 3) invoice no. 035 for amount of Rs. 15,03,064 (dated 03.11.2017) and works contract receipt is

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1283 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4459 of 2023 3

adjusted for Rs. 12,74,317 along with 18% GST of Rs. 2,29,377 are attached at Annexure A-8 of the petition."

6. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the invoices produced

by the petitioner are of period where the work between the parties had stopped

and the respondent had handed over the work site to the owner. The

Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that no claim for invoice could

have been accepted.

7. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, it shall

be open for the Appellant to take such remedy in law with regard to invoice

claimed in Section 9 Application.

8. With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Anjali/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1283 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4459 of 2023