TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or was entitled to mobilization advance prior to commencement of actual work in the wake of Corporate Debtors plea that no machinery or equipment was moved to the construction site raised a debatable issue which could be agitated before the Civil Court. This is apart from the fact that the claim set up by the Appellant in the final bill dated 4th September, 2017 and the notice under Section 8 of ‘I&B Code’ is at variance. This Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 67 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2018 - Mr. Bansi Lal Bhat, J. For The Appellant : Mr. Swaroop George and Mrs. Omana George, Advocates ORDER Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of Minutes of Meeting held between the parties. Respondent Corporate Debtor is said to have acceded to the same. However, no payment was made prompting the Appellant to issue demand notice dated 12th September, 2017 under Section 8 of I B Code. Despite service of such notice, the Appellant s claim was not satisfied by the respondent. No notice of dispute emanated from the Corporate Debtor. In the given circumstances, Appellant Operational Creditor filed application aforesaid for triggering the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. 3. Respondent, to the notice served upon him, filed reply pleading that the Corporate Debtor was obliged to pay the mobilization advance subject to completion of mobili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er mobilization of equipment was done by the Operational Creditor, as the same fell beyond the domain of its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the I B Code . It was of the opinion that the construction work was a composite contract involving supply of material as well as rendering works at the site and since neither of the two had commenced to sustain claim of advance payment, it noted that there was a contradiction in regard to the claim in as much as a sum of ₹ 2880837.30 had been claimed in terms of the bill dated 4th September, 2017 whereas in terms of the notice under Section 8 of I B Code such amount had not been claimed. The learned Adjudicating Authority being of the view that non-payment of advance could not give rise to a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
