2022 (11) TMI 703 - AT - Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - service of demand notice - Demand notice also not replied - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the genesis of their relationship as a developer and consultant is the agreement dated 09.03.2016 as per which the Respondent was liable to pay consultation charges to the Appellant for the booking of the unit(s) in terms of the clauses of the agreement much less clause 6 and 10. The Appellant has claimed separate amount in separate applications on the basis of number of units booked in the separate projects and also claimed their dues by way of a demand notice before filing the application under Section 9 of the Code. Not only that the demand notice in the case of Xrbia Eiffel City II i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1029 of 2021 is not replied by the Respondent but also reply to the other demand notices were filed much after the period prescribed under the Code.
Be that as it may, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the application, filed under Section 9 of the Code by the Appellant, on the ground that there was a pre-existing dispute which was raised before filing the petition and was clearly intimated in the email dated 01.03.2017. The perusal of the said email dated 01.03.2017 does not make out any head or tail and there is no specific finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority explaining as to how it has reached to the conclusion that the said email raised a dispute already existing between the parties.
The impugned order is in violation of the principle of natural justice because the impugned order is a non-speaking order - the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide them afresh by giving reasons and passing a speaking order - appeal allowed.