Yantra Harvest Energy Pvt. Ltd vs Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd

Yantra Harvest Energy Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Rahul Sripat, Mr. Rohit Chaudhary and Mr. Anchit Sripat, Advocates and Mr. Nesar Ahmad, PCS.

For Respondent:- Mr. Navneet Kumar Jain and Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, Advocates.

ORDER

10.07.2018─ This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-

('Operational Creditor') against the order dated 29th May, 2018 passed by

the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad

Bench, Allahabad in Company Application No. (IB) 95/ALD of 2017,

whereby and whereunder the application preferred under Section 9 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "I&B

Code") has been rejected on the ground of 'existence of dispute'.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there was no

dispute in existence as the Respondent agreed to pay 12% interest with

the principal amount which is apparent from some of the records.

Contd/-..............

-2-

3. From the record, we find that the 'Corporate Debtor' took specific

plea which has been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority that before

issuance of the demand notice under Section 8(1) in reply to notice under

Sections 433(e) and 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, the 'Corporate

Debtor' raised the dispute relating to the quality of service. However,

according to learned counsel for the Appellant, such reply has not been

received.

4. This apart, we find that the 'Corporate Debtor' filed e-mail

correspondence dated 24th November 2015 and 19th November, 2015 and

from the documents attached, including the e-mail dated 18th November,

2015, it is clear that 24-hours continuous run test on above 12 numbers

VFD was to be carried out but such matter was not carried out by the

'Operational Creditor' and pending for balance nine numbers were shown

therein. As per the purchase order specs/approved documents 24-hours

continuous run test has to be carried out on each VFD before dispatch

and the aforesaid activities were not completed for balance nine numbers

of VFD's, it was alleged that contract was not fully executed.

5. In view of the fact that there is an 'existence of dispute', we hold

that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application under

Section 9 of the 'I&B Code'. However, the order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority and this Appellate Tribunal will not come in the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 354 of 2018 -3-

way to the Appellant to move before a court of Competent Jurisdiction for

appropriate relief. The appeal is dismissed. No cost.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 354 of 2018