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 421 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - pre-existing dispute or not - Whether pre-existing dispute exists before issuance of the demand notice? - HELD THAT:- The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has given a finding that there is a running composite account between the same parties, and there is no differentiation between the different work orders issued between the parties. It is also on record that the Operational Creditor had filed Section 9 application in respect of outstanding dues under the following Purchase Orders and two Work Orders amounting to ₹ 48,06,944/- with the interest of ₹ 14,69,242/- aggregating to ₹ 62,76,186/- for the projects at Hyderabad Centrum Project, Hyderabad and Greena Panvel Project, Maharashtra. The service was deficient in respect of Sky Forest Project, but there was no dispute concerning P.O. No. 3228108125. The Corporate Debtor himself alleged that the Operational Creditor is pressurizing the payment under P.O. No. 3228108125 under the fear that the same will not function similar to STP at Sky Forest Project. On perusal of the Reply dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure A-7), it is clear that no dispute was existing about the P.O. No. 3228108125. There is nothing on record to substantiate that there is running composite account between the same parties, and there is no differentiation between different work orders issued between the parties. The above observation of the Adjudicating Authority is without any basis. It is also necessary to mention that each P.O./W.O. Constitutes separate contract having separate terms and conditions and independent dispute resolution clause, therefore for the alleged deficiency of service relating to the Sky Forest Project, the outstanding payment relating to other invoices could not be stopped and the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that there was pre-existing dispute is also erroneous - thus, it is clear that the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the application filed under Section 9 of the IBC based on the pre-existing dispute. Appeal allowed.
|