TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent, we find that there is pre-existing dispute with regard to calculation of dues and we do not find any fault with the Orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the application. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.517 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2019 - Mr. A.I.S. Cheema Member (Judicial) and Balvinder Singh Member (Technical) For Appellant : Shri Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocate with Shri Dheeraj Gupta and Ms. Sanam Siddiqui, Advocates For Respondent : Shri Rakesh K. Sharma and Shri Nishant Sharma, Advocates JUDGEMENT 1. The Appellant Operational Creditor filed C.P. (IB) No.167/9/HDB/2018 under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC in short) against the Respondents Corporate Debtor which came to be rejected as the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) on 16.07.2018 came to a conclusion that there was a pre-existing dispute with regard to quantum of liability. 2. The Appellant claims and it has been argued for the Appellant that the Respondent had placed orders with the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Consequently, the Appellant filed Application under Section 9 of IBC on 19th February, 2018. On 17th April, 2018, the Court of ADJ, Chandigarh dismissed Objection Petition under Section 34 and confirmed the Arbitral Award. The Respondent filed Appeal to Hon ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) 14954/2018 but the same was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 06.06.2018. According to the Appellant, in the circumstances, it was apparent that there was the debt due and the Executing Authority erroneously dismissed the Company Petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC. 4. Against this, Reply has been field by the Respondent and it is also argued that before the Arbitration Council, the Appellant had filed its claims for invoices 1 to 45 but the same were allowed only regarding invoices 26 to 45 and invoices at Serial No.1 to 25 were held to be time barred. It is claimed that the amounts towards interest for the delayed payment of original invoice amount, which was liable to be paid in respect of claims 26 to 45, was appended to the said Award at ₹ 22,42,619/-. Respondent claims that after the Arbitral Award was passed, the Appellant went on filing several execution proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tates that the Appellant then filed another Execution Petition EP 33/2016 before City Civil Court, Hyderabad to recover monies as per the Award under dispute, but for recovery of amount beyond the award together with other amounts in respect of claims 1 to 25 for which no Award had been passed and in the process, sought prohibitory orders which were granted on 30th June, 2016 because of which, Respondent filed Civil Revision CRP 3601 of 2016 before the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was allowed on 8th November, 2016 holding that the Execution Petition filed with regard to invoices 1 to 25 and the Garnishee Order issued for recovery of the said amount was illegal. The Garnishee Order was, however, confirmed with regard to invoices 26 to 45. Respondent claims that being aggrieved, Respondent filed SLP 187 of 2017 before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India but the same was disposed by direction to the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh to determine the amount towards 75% of the Award to enable Respondent to deposit the same within 15 days from the date of Order. According to the Respondent, subsequently, as per Orders of District Court, the Respondent deposited th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of the Award and no dues of any money is payable under the said Award (Diary No.7688 Page-11). 10. The learned Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that when the Arbitration Case 580 of 2010 filed by the Respondent/A.P. TRANSCO before ADJ was dismissed on 17.04.2018, Respondent had filed FAO 2764 of 2018 to the High Court but the same was dismissed on 18th May, 2018 and the Respondent then filed SLP 14954/2018 before Hon ble Supreme Court, which also came to be dismissed on 6th June, 2018. The Counsel submitted that after such dismissal, Respondent had filed MA 1638/2018 in SLP (C)14954/2018 seeking clarification and the Hon ble Supreme Court passed the following Order:- By Order dated 6.06.2018, this Court has simply dismissed the Special Leave Petitions of the petitioner which amounts to conforming the order of the High Court. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the applicant/petitioner submits that it should be clarified that the petitioner has a right to file objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and also points out that there are certain payments due to the petitioner as well which sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
