TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. The justification of withholding the entire outstanding amount is not within the scope and jurisdiction of the Bench to appreciate, as the invoking the provision of this Code is not for a Recovery of Debt. Whether the Corporate Debtor is entitled to adjust liquidated damages without actually proving is also not for this Bench to consider. Suffice it to say that there is some material placed before us to reflect the dissatisfaction of the work awarded. A sum of ₹ 63,99,062/- has already been paid by the corporate debtors. The Corporate Debtor has claimed adjustment towards removal of the snags by third parties during the defect liability period, liquidated damages and payment of rent without being operational for want of the project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claims that in view of the delay in receiving due permissions/drawings etc., from the Corporate Debtor, they could only complete the job work and hand over the property on 19.03.2016. All snags pointed out by the Corporate Debtor had been duly removed and attended to by the Operational creditor, pursuant to which a final bill dated 17.08.2016 was submitted for payment of the balance amount of ₹ 88,87,502/-. The Operational Creditor has also relied upon the Corporate Debtor's agent M/s. Cushman Wakefield certifying the handing over of the premises and the final bill raised for the work done. As the said amount remained unpaid, demand notice in Form III accompanied by invoices was sent to the corporate debtor, which was duly ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contractual amount which has unilaterally been increased by the petitioner without due sanction from them. (ii) There is correspondence between the parties where dissatisfaction over the job work done has been expressed. Since the snags were not removed by the petitioner, the Corporate Debtor was constrained to engage the services of a third party for completion of the job. Reliance by the Operational Creditor on the virtual handing over certificate given by M/s. Cushman Wakefield on their behalf is misplaced as it does record satisfaction of the work done. Even this certificate contains a Defect Liability Period of 12 months which extended till March, 2017. During this period itself, various snags were pointed out, not only by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been raised vide various emails addressed to the Operational Creditor. 8. As per the provisions of 5(6) of the Code dispute has defined to include a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to (a) The existence of the amount of debt; (b) The quality of goods or service; or (c) The breach of a representation or warranty. 9. The terminology Dispute cannot be given a rigid interpretation or be limited to pendency of a suit or an arbitration proceeding. The justification of withholding the entire outstanding amount is not within the scope and jurisdiction of the Bench to appreciate, as the invoking the provision of this Code is not for a Recovery of Debt. Whether the Corporate Debtor is entitled to adjust liquidated damages w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
