Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 393 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - service of SCN - Reply to the notice, raising dispute - pre-existing dispute or not - Appeal filed pointing out various documents to show that there were deficiencies in service including delays and because of that the Work Order was terminated and that Adjudicating Authority did not give proper opportunity to the Appellant to defend the action - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority was proceeding with an important proceeding like one under IBC and even if the Appellant had not appeared, it was apparent from the application under Section 9 filed itself that there was pre-existing dispute. The Adjudicating Authority referred to the averments made by the Operational Creditor in Para- 2 of its Order and the averments themselves show there were incomplete works and Corporate Debtor had terminated Work Order. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to Rejoinder and trail of e-mails dated 27.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 30.09.2016, 04.10.2016, 14.10.2016, 19.10.2016, 23.10.2016, 26.10.2016 & 09.11.2016. sent by Appellant to Corporate Debtor which show that there were disputes regarding workmanship and time factor and the Learned Counsel for Appellant states that because of such aspects the Work Order was terminated on 17th November, 2016. The Operational Creditor kept quiet for long time and then sent Notice under Section 8 which was duly replied - Considering all this, it is found that there were pre-existing disputes and it was inappropriate for the Adjudicating Authority to admit application under Section 9. Application dismissed.
|