Xionn Services Pvt. Ltd vs Aman Hospitality Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 810 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority was entitled to reject an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 where the corporate debtor, before the application was filed, had raised a bona fide dispute concerning the quality of the work to which the operational debt relates, as shown by its written replies to the operational creditor, and the existence of such a pre-existing dispute is a sufficient ground for refusing admission.
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. 810 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Xionn Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
M/s. Aman Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Suman Doval and Mr. Ramesh Wangnoo, Advocates
ORDER
08.08.2019 The Appellant (Operational Creditor) filed an application
under Section 9 of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' (for short, 'the
I&B Code') for initiation of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against
'M/s. Aman Hospitality Private Limited' (Corporate Debtor). The Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi rejected
the claim in view of 'existence of dispute'.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant referred to the letter
dated 8th May, 2010 placing order and said that the matter should have been
admitted for resolution. However, such ground cannot be taken for entertaining
the application u/s 9 of the 'I&B Code', in view of the fact that the respondent
had raised dispute relating to quality of work by their reply dated 26th December,
2015 and 8th January, 2016 when it was brought to the notice of the Appellant
that there was dispute in respect of water proofing work.
3. The aforesaid fact having been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority, we
are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order though as regards delay -2-
being satisfied with the grounds, we condone the delay of 15 days in preferring
the appeal. I.A. No. 2453 of 2019 stands disposed of.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)
[ Kanthi Narahari ] Member (Technical) /ns/sk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 810 of 2019
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