9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent for construction of a hotel viz., Ritz Carlton Hotel in Bengaluru. The contract for construction of the hotel was awarded to the petitioner and as per the final payment certificate issued by respondent to the petitioner, it was entitled to a sum of Rs. 98,54,97,854/- out of which an amount of Rs. 92,51,42,207/- was paid by the respondent on 31.10.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that as per final payment certificate, the respondent is liable to make payment of an amount of Rs. 6,03,55,646/- to the petitioner. The respondent failed to pay the outstanding amount. Thereupon the petitioner was constrained to issue a demand notice on 28.09.2017 under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (hereinafter referred to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 4 SCC 91 AND 'KANDLE EXPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. OCI CORPORATION AND ANOTHER', CIVIL APPEAL NO.1661-1663/2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and has submitted that in case of alternative remedy this court should not exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that since the petitioner has already filed an application for appointment of arbitrator. In support of his submissions, reference has been made to a decision of Supreme Court in 'BOOZ ALLEN AND HAMILTON INC. VS. SBI HOME FINANCE LIMITED AND OTHERS', (2011) 5 SCC 532. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile company petition. The learned counsel has pointed relevant paras in the judgments, which are already referred to above, in support of his case. Therefore, he urged the Tribunal to dismiss the present company application and adjudicate the main company petition for initiation of CIRP. 4. From perusal of the submissions recorded in para 8 of the impugned order it is evident that arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner has only been heard by the Tribunal only on the application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996. However, the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated against the respondent under Section 9 of the Code itself has been dismissed. In other words, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
