Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1104 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate insolvency procedure - maintainability of application for procedure - Held that:- From the record we find that a sub-contract works agreement was reached between the parties. The scheduled completion date in relation to works of agreement dated 19th April, 2011 was 31st December, 2012. According to appellant, the respondent/applicant failed and ignored to complete the agreement works by that date. The respondent/applicant continued the works till May, 2014 and executed only 78% of the agreement value of works and had wilfully abandoned the works w.e.f May, 2014. From the aforesaid fact not disputed by respondent, it is clear that there was a dispute in existence prior to issuance of demand notice under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the ‘I&B Code’ and for that the application under Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’ was not maintainable. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that as the ‘I&B Code’ do not empower the Adjudicating Authority to suggest any name or appoint any ‘Interim Resolution Professional’/Resolution Professional of its own choice. However, as we find that the parties have settled the dispute and initiation of Resolution process under section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’ was not maintainable, in view of existence of dispute, we leave the question open as to whether the Adjudicating Authority has power to appoint any person of its own choice or not which will be decided in an appropriate case.
|